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

CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 363 posts

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#261

Post by ska »

klyrs wrote: post #239
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen multiple startups struggle because their CEO makes more than 10 qualified technical staff, The fully loaded cost of a qualified developer begins in the six figures. A CEO earning 10x that would be earning 7 figures. I've never seen an actual startup with a CEO earning 7 figure cash compensation. I don't think any reasonable investors or even board members would allow that. Startup CEOs are largely compens…

Yeah, you're right, I guess I've only seen ~5x at proper startups, but when you multiply that by the number of executives, it's still an egregious impediment to the product

Event that is pretty rare in startups IME. Typically it might be 2x-3x a (truly) sr. dev, but CEO's in "proper" startups tend to be equity heavy and salary light, like other employees. Equity difference will be a much higher multiple than salary.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#262

Post by impulser_ »

jordanpg wrote: post #207

I would love it if someone could explain to me like I'm 5, why it is exactly, that CEOs are so highly paid. I get that it's hard. I get that there are long hours. I get that it requires long-term strategic thinking. None of that helps me understand O(100M) "compensation." I'm pretty sure that executives get paid so much because of (a) their rolodex (ie. their ability to get certain people on the phone) and (b) becaus…

Supply and Demand.

The supply of great CEOs is very limited, but the demand is very high.

Therefore the price of CEOs are very high.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#263

Post by anigbrowl »

cdirkx wrote: post #30
smoldesu wrote: post #8

The reason we don't automate CEOs is liability: the board of directors/shareholders want someone to hold accountable when bad decisions start getting made. If you pay $4000 for a brand new iCEO that lays off your entire staff, you can really only scream at whoever minted the software making that decision, which often comes with limited liability licenses. Remember, corporate structure is about minimizing your own wor…

My new SAAS startup idea; scapegoat as a service. For a few million dollars you can hire me, put all the blame on me, I say "I take full responsibility" and resign my position.

You jest but there are some real people like this. My spouse once worked at small (1-200 staff) but profitable SaaS/service firm in a niche market. Another firm bought it, the Founder/CEO and some other top execs cashed out. The new parent firm folded the software and book of business into its own operations, and brought in a new CEO for the subsidiary...who methodically ran it into the ground over the course of a year or two, basically wrecking it by stages so that staff could be laid off without violating employment laws.

Mystified by this apparent gross incompetence (my spouse had been an early hire and knew the firm's operations inside out; they still had a healthy client base in addition to the software portfolio), we looked into the background of the CEO and discovered the person had done the same thing at several other firms.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#265

Post by warent »

fighterpilot wrote: post #234
mytailorisrich wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what? Everyone is allocated the same by the state? A society where no-one has any function to society and where the state allocates resources to individuals sounds more dystopian than utopian to me...

I was merely stating what I expect to happen, not what I want. It sounds pretty bad to me as well. Not worse than poverty, but meaningless and boring otherwise. Some people will make their own meaning, but many won't.

Going off on a tangent here, but I'm curious to know what would be meaningless and boring about it. This would permanently solve the first two foundations of Maslow's hierarchy of needs so people can focus on the top three.

It could be argued that the truth is actually the reverse: it would enable most people to find a much deeper meaning, while only an exclusive few (probably mostly pathological people, like sociopaths and narcissists) won't.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#266

Post by rightbyte »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #232

This is all very silly. Upper management is payed a lot in stock to assure loyalty to ownership. This is a crucial component to enforcing the shareholder theory of value: a legal prerogative that was being eroded in the mid 20th century as industry became more complex, workers became more empowered, and absentee ownership had a harder time holding onto the reigns.

Do you mean that the stockholders need to pay a ransom to not have the executives wreck the corp? It has long been mine suspicion too.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#267

Post by johbjo »

One aspect of leadership is symbolic. If the company falls on hard times and needs to restructure/fire people, we can let the current CEO be associated with all the ugly stuff, and then bring in a new CEO to raise hope.

There is a need for the employees to believe the CEO is important. Pay is one dimension in which this can be accomplished.

CEO pay functions as an aspirational goal for all career paths in the company.

I think the actual role of CEOs is symbolic, in these and many other ways.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#268

Post by fighterpilot »

warent wrote: post #265
fighterpilot wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was merely stating what I expect to happen, not what I want. It sounds pretty bad to me as well. Not worse than poverty, but meaningless and boring otherwise. Some people will make their own meaning, but many won't.

Going off on a tangent here, but I'm curious to know what would be meaningless and boring about it. This would permanently solve the first two foundations of Maslow's hierarchy of needs so people can focus on the top three. It could be argued that the truth is actually the reverse: it would enable most people to find a much deeper meaning, while only an exclusive few (probably mostly pathological people, like sociopa…

You're possibly right, but do people who inherit millions or win the lottery strike you as particularly happy after 10 years?

Admittedly, I only have anecdotal data on that.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#269

Post by koonsolo »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #106
spullara wrote: post #102

The comments in here are hilarious. If you think the CEO doesn't matter in a company you have never been on a board of a company and had the responsibility to hire and fire them.

> you have never been on a board of a company and had the responsibility to hire and fire them. Think about that statement, just for 5 seconds. Please. You do realize very, very few people meet this criteria. And their opinions still matter because they are impacted.

I don't know if you are a programmer, but next time when you make a technical or architectural decision, make sure you consult your users, because their opinions still matter because they are impacted.

Your statement is absurd because being impacted has nothing to do with having the knowledge to talk about a subject.

Re: CEOs are hugely expensive – why not automate them?

#270

Post by koonsolo »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #124
spullara wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the comments are making definitive statements that you can't evaluate CEOs. They should think about it for 5 seconds and realize that they are not experts in the domain.

So you never voice opinions about topics that you aren't in expert on, otherwise you'd be a flaming hypocrite, right? Cool!

The thing with opinions is that everybody has one.

I much rather read insightful knowledge from people that know what they are talking about.

And that is my opinion.

Post reply on HN