21–30 of 70 posts
Left out Imperva, which was bought by Thoma Bravo in January. 150 people let go while the CEO makes $15 million. Mismanaged incentives - employees don't matter, just shareholders.
Left out Imperva, which was bought by Thoma Bravo in January. 150 people let go while the CEO makes $15 million. Mismanaged incentives - employees don't matter, just shareholders.
Left out Imperva, which was bought by Thoma Bravo in January. 150 people let go while the CEO makes $15 million. Mismanaged incentives - employees don't matter, just shareholders.
Any company where the CEO makes over 25 times the average worker is mismanaged. Are they honestly suggesting that the CEO gets 200 times more work in, or has 200 times the experience, or maybe 200 times the connections? Or some combination? Which is it?
Or at least, that's how CEOs sell themselves. I think that idea makes sense, but only if the company does well. If it doesn't the execs still have the power to grant themselves massive bonuses before the shareholders can react.
It's kind of like the classic 2% fee investment manager, they'll say they are the best at what they do, when of course they almost never beat the market. Still, regardless of how they do, they make bank. I think what really needs to happen is people need to learn to stop trusting people just because they talk smooth and make an optimistic pitch, and start focusing executive salaries on being entirely results based, with only a modest base salary.
Left out Imperva, which was bought by Thoma Bravo in January. 150 people let go while the CEO makes $15 million. Mismanaged incentives - employees don't matter, just shareholders.
Any company where the CEO makes over 25 times the average worker is mismanaged. Are they honestly suggesting that the CEO gets 200 times more work in, or has 200 times the experience, or maybe 200 times the connections? Or some combination? Which is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's the idea of Marx.
Marx had a lot of ideas; some of them were probably good. Involving workers in the ownership of companies seems like a good idea even if Marx supported it. Marxism as practiced in places like, eg, Russia fell down because they disrupted the ability of the market to send and receive accurate price signals and over time that led to catastrophically misallocated resources. Many of the people who want socialism seem to s…
Many markets are stagnant and do not offer healthy competition. There's a fair share of markets that still offer healthy competition, but from my perspective, it seems like the end goal of market optimization almost inevitably leads to monopolization which always leads to stagnation.
True competition and an informed/economically conscious consumer market are key requirements to this signaling process. We don't have a lot of either in many markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's the idea of Marx.
Marx had a lot of ideas; some of them were probably good. Involving workers in the ownership of companies seems like a good idea even if Marx supported it. Marxism as practiced in places like, eg, Russia fell down because they disrupted the ability of the market to send and receive accurate price signals and over time that led to catastrophically misallocated resources. Many of the people who want socialism seem to s…
This is extremely ahistorical. The fall of the USSR was due to Gorbachev's decision to introduce "western" markets into Russia and Yeltsin's opportunism. Growth and stability weren't flagging in the Soviet Union until they attempted to privatize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any company where the CEO makes over 25 times the average worker is mismanaged. Are they honestly suggesting that the CEO gets 200 times more work in, or has 200 times the experience, or maybe 200 times the connections? Or some combination? Which is it?
What the CEO really has is 200x the affect on the company. A 15m bonus for a CEO may sound ridiculous but if picking that CEO led the company to 50m increase in revenue over an average CEO than it was well worth it to hire them. Or at least, that's how CEOs sell themselves. I think that idea makes sense, but only if the company does well. If it doesn't the execs still have the power to grant themselves massive bonuse…
If you're competent, you likely hesitate because most cases are truly not clear cut when viewed through a lens of knowledge with a conscious.
It's easy to come off as confident when you're ignorant or know that simply appearing confident has a positive effect. The real key is to be competent and hide your hesitations/in decisions with confidence. The real problem is discerning which a person is: ignorant, manipulative, or a great leader--so confidence isn't a good measure for me. The only good measure is a historical record of good decisions or clear communication from leadership.