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

321–330 of 363 posts

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

#321

Post by anm89 »

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 think you follow.

It really does not matter at all what those people think about this topic and it doesn't matter what percentage of people this excludes. The topic is hiring decisions for CEOs. If you aren't hiring CEOs, then you don't get a say.

You may think this isn't nice or isn't fair or whatever but it does not change the fact that those people get absolutely zero say on this topic.

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

#322

Post by anm89 »

harperlee wrote: post #60
ARandomerDude wrote: post #42

CEOs aren't paid for the day-to-day value they provide to the company. They're paid for the long-term, strategic value the owners think they might provide the company in comparison to other candidates. So if you think CEO Candidate X will make you a 3x return on your investment, but CEO Candidate Y will make you a 5x return, it's almost certainly worth it to pay him/her the extra $200K to get you there, if that's the…

They should then be compensated with a leveraged long-term derivative product that pays based on the stock difference between their company and the industry, 5 to 10 years apart. "You want to be insanely rich? Here's a huge company that's not yours as a resource, now make it so it is the best one in 10 years!"

They should be compensated however their board says they should be compensated. You don't get a say in that.

I could say that all German people should wear purple shirts. It doesn't much matter unless I have a proposed method to enforce it.

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

#323

Post by _dps »

jordanpg wrote: post #293
thehappypm wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kyle's dad is the coach of your soccer team, right? Kyle's dad gets really really excited when you do well. He makes it fun, and you love going to practice! And you guys seem to win a lot! Do you remember last year, when Mike's dad was the coach? He yelled a lot, you hated going to practice, he made you cry? And you never seemed to win? Because Kyle's dad is a better coach, you win more. He's worth more to the team.…

Right, lots of wins are good, but why does the coach need to get paid $100M? Why is $1M not good enough? Let me guess: because being a coach is so hard, and requires so incredibly much smarts and talent that only a precious few people have?

Many people with the skills to be CEOs of important companies would consider $1M a rounding error. It makes no difference to their economic outlook.

Also, there are many ways to make $1M without the risk and responsibility of being a CEO (among other things, just making low-risk investments with a $20M portfolio).

So between the comparative ease of making $1M elsewhere, and the low impact of $1M (to someone with tens of millions in the bank), it's not surprising why such people cannot be had for that price.

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

#324

Post by jordanpg »

_dps wrote: post #323
jordanpg wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, lots of wins are good, but why does the coach need to get paid $100M? Why is $1M not good enough? Let me guess: because being a coach is so hard, and requires so incredibly much smarts and talent that only a precious few people have?

Many people with the skills to be CEOs of important companies would consider $1M a rounding error. It makes no difference to their economic outlook. Also, there are many ways to make $1M without the risk and responsibility of being a CEO (among other things, just making low-risk investments with a $20M portfolio). So between the comparative ease of making $1M elsewhere, and the low impact of $1M (to someone with tens…

Are you saying that, as a result of being so incredibly talented, by definition, executives are already rich and therefore have to be paid more to keep them around for their valuable services and wisdom?

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

#325

Post by _dps »

jordanpg wrote: post #324
_dps wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people with the skills to be CEOs of important companies would consider $1M a rounding error. It makes no difference to their economic outlook. Also, there are many ways to make $1M without the risk and responsibility of being a CEO (among other things, just making low-risk investments with a $20M portfolio). So between the comparative ease of making $1M elsewhere, and the low impact of $1M (to someone with tens…

Are you saying that, as a result of being so incredibly talented, by definition, executives are already rich and therefore have to be paid more to keep them around for their valuable services and wisdom?

I take no position on talent or wisdom, but yes the kinds of people capable of being F500 CEOs are mostly already in this category of richness.

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

#326

Post by setr »

nathanappere wrote: post #105
mellavora wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what makes you think this isn't already the case? CEO comps often include stock options.

If you prevent CEOs from selling their stock for the next X years, sure.

Isn't that also usually the case? There's generally a vesting period.

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

#327

Post by anitil »

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.

I'd be interested in hearing about this experience if you'd be willing to share?

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

#328

Post by hedora »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #42

CEOs aren't paid for the day-to-day value they provide to the company. They're paid for the long-term, strategic value the owners think they might provide the company in comparison to other candidates. So if you think CEO Candidate X will make you a 3x return on your investment, but CEO Candidate Y will make you a 5x return, it's almost certainly worth it to pay him/her the extra $200K to get you there, if that's the…

After dealing personally with a few CEOs (good and bad), I’ve come to the conclusion they’re paid proportionally to the amount of damage they can cause.

This probably applies to many other professions. Doctors come to mind. Teachers and police don’t, though.

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

#329

Post by niceairport »

fighterpilot wrote: post #319
teawrecks wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain why an AGI is needed? Because to me, invoking the need for an AGI sounds equivalent to saying you don't understand the problem space.

The job of a CEO would need AGI because it's the type of job that requires understanding of human social dynamics, market context, regulatory context, etc. Such cross domain multi faceted expertise is the type of thing that needs general and broad intelligence to do effectively. Hire people, fire people, pitch investors, manage direct reports across multiple business lines, understand what's going on in the world and…

I have mixed feelings between your response and the response you are replying to. One one hand I can clearly see how what you're saying makes sense. On the other, I still am inclined to believe that if you really distilled the actual purpose of everything you mentioned, it could be formulated in a way that doesn't require AGI.

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

#330

Post by thehappypm »

JohnPrine wrote: post #304
jordanpg wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, lots of wins are good, but why does the coach need to get paid $100M? Why is $1M not good enough? Let me guess: because being a coach is so hard, and requires so incredibly much smarts and talent that only a precious few people have?

If this is true, why don't companies just higher people who are willing to be CEO for less money?

Why don’t companies hire software engineers who are willing to write code for less money?

People tend to want to be paid market value

Post reply on HN