Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 91 posts

Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November

#11

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

wrren wrote: post #9
jstanley wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Because it's an expression of a corrupt system where CEO pay is public, and thus it's easy for candidates to negotiate, but employees are strongly discouraged from sharing their own pay data or are prevented from seeing the company's own pay bands. Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Where employees w…

> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there.

Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs has gotten shorter and shorter over the last decades. Finding a new job is also considerably harder, as the market size gets smaller and smaller the higher you go in the pyramid.

There are bad and questionable reasons why compensations are high, but also some good and reasonable ones. If markets seem irrational, chances are good you don’t fully understand them.

Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November

#12

Post by nandhinianand »

jstanley wrote: post #7
pmlnr wrote: post #3

The fact that there are ceos who get paid 200x more, than an employee, is already outrageous.

Why?

Uhmm.. mostly because the value an employee(CEO or not) brings to a business is already a probability function with variables(one of them simply being time and it's impact a unknown) and different expected values. If we believe that result-oriented rewarding is practiced, it's questionable that it can be estimated how much of an impact CEO can have and how it can be 200x of other employee. Infact, the reverse question of why pay a CEO a high salary should be the more common question, rather than why not.

-- I am skipping unknown unknowns for now, but you use your imagination.

Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November

#13

Post by Seasonwreckage »

briandear wrote: post #2

So if a company pays its CEO less, will they get a tax credit? Unlikely. With coronavirus, why does a company need to have a San Francisco HQ? Simply move the headquarters to Las Vegas, Reno, or Texas, and hire remote. To my knowledge, there aren’t too many hardware companies in San Francisco; they are mostly companies they have employees that sit at computers typing stuff or calling people. Other than cachet, why wo…

Why are we downvoting this? It is the most fair assessment of the tech industry. FAANG might vacate large office spaces completely and shift status quo in real estate, VC and startups for the next 10 years.

Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November

#14

Post by mehrdadn »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #11
wrren wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's an expression of a corrupt system where CEO pay is public, and thus it's easy for candidates to negotiate, but employees are strongly discouraged from sharing their own pay data or are prevented from seeing the company's own pay bands. Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Where employees w…

> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs h…

> The average tenure of execs has gotten shorter and shorter over the last decades.

"Reduced tenure" when you're making plenty more money than needed to avoid having to work the difference in the first place hardly seems like such a catastrophic outcome. So many people can only dream of making enough money so they can retire early and not have to work at all. I know if you pay me a million dollars I wouldn't exactly shed a tear if I don't find a job anytime soon. I'm not sure I'd be dying to look for one either, and if somehow I were, I wouldn't feel entitled to anyone's sympathy if I don't find one, let alone feel entitled to offloading my emotional "cost" onto their wallets.

And I'm not even trying to take a side here. I do get that the situation is not as trivial as some portray it. But in your effort to illustrate that fact, you're oversimplifying massively in the other direction and ignoring some pretty salient facts.

> You get fired easier

I haven't particularly noticed CEOs match the turnover rates of their average employees, but I suppose you have data to the contrary and it's just my ignorance?

Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November

#15

Post by pydry »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #11
wrren wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's an expression of a corrupt system where CEO pay is public, and thus it's easy for candidates to negotiate, but employees are strongly discouraged from sharing their own pay data or are prevented from seeing the company's own pay bands. Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Where employees w…

> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs h…

Risky like when Adam Neumann was fired from WeWork with a $1.7 billion severance package?

>If markets seem irrational, chances are good you don’t fully understand them.

So not a racket then?

Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November

#17

Post by tpetry »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #11
wrren wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's an expression of a corrupt system where CEO pay is public, and thus it's easy for candidates to negotiate, but employees are strongly discouraged from sharing their own pay data or are prevented from seeing the company's own pay bands. Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Where employees w…

> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs h…

I wouldnt call being a highly paid ceo be „riskier“. The ones not fired because of fraud get a new position ant a new company again very „fast“. Even the incompetent ones with a track history of companies dying after they came.

Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November

#18

Post by kakd »

pydry wrote: post #15
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs h…

Risky like when Adam Neumann was fired from WeWork with a $1.7 billion severance package? >If markets seem irrational, chances are good you don’t fully understand them. So not a racket then?

Neumann was a co-founder. Hired CEOs will almost never make it to billionaire status (Ballmer, Schmidt and Damon are the only notable exceptions I know of).

Re: San Francisco will put ‘CEO tax’ on the ballot this November

#19

Post by Miner49er »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #11
wrren wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's an expression of a corrupt system where CEO pay is public, and thus it's easy for candidates to negotiate, but employees are strongly discouraged from sharing their own pay data or are prevented from seeing the company's own pay bands. Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Where employees w…

> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs h…

Most CEO's golden parachutes are worth more then some workers make in a decade or even their lifetime. It doesn't matter if they are at a higher risk of being fired or have a harder time finding a job afterwards.
Post reply on HN