301–310 of 611 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> paid zero > paid $1.5 million in cash These are two wildly different things.
$1.5 million is approximately $0 in comparison to the originally-quoted $110 million—it's less than 2% of the original amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Use the same framework to explain CEO pay. Sure. It's the same framework that explains the pay of Lebron James. The NBA became a massively popular global game during the era of fast growth globalization, in which billions of consumers entered into the active global economy. Now you've got like 50 players earning $30m or more per year in the NBA. To play a game in just the US market. ~450 active players earning arou…
Lebron James is not the CEO of his team. In your analogy, he's a worker not a CEO. He was the vice president of the player's union. The NBA compensates workers based on the value they bring to the team. Isn't that what the UAW is arguing for?
The UAW has skilled workers, and they are compensated well in general. Perhaps they should earn, more or less, I'm not sure. But the relative value is exactly the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody who is qualified to do it... I've worked with executives at that level, and let's face it-- most of us don't have the single-minded devotion to do it, nor the experience to manage thousands of people.
I do not understand people that believe all executive are useless and do nothing.
If both Wal-Mart and Amazon drivers strike we might actually have a shot a taking a bite out of capital finally.
> From 1978 to 2021, CEO pay grew by 1,460%, adjusted for inflation, versus just 18.1% for the typical worker. Why has the supply of CEOs not kept up with the demand for them? Surely, with the improvement in education and in increase in MBA programs, there must be far more CEOs today than in 1978. Why has the ratio of CEOs to Companies fallen by 14x for their wages to rise this much? /s As many argue, wages are only…
What separates the good CEOs from the poor CEOs isn't something you can readily teach. Some of the best ones have a preternatural ability for the role in the same sense that Lionel Messi has a preternatural ability at his sport, and are equally rare. The majority of CEOs are journeymen with the skills to do the job but not to be great at it. This doesn't mean that average employees are fit to be CEOs; you don't have to look further than startup CEOs, which are pulled from an above average pool of semi-random people, to discredit that notion. It is a highly specialized skill set that is difficult to acquire and most people aren't mentally cut out for what is required to be good at it. The experiment of promoting rando employees to CEO has been tried on occasion across industry with almost universally poor results.
This is true of most professions that command a high wage. Thinking that anyone could be a CEO is like thinking any dev can be Fabrice Bellard. Even if that turned out to be the case in a specific instance, no one should expect it to generalize.
While its not exactly a vindication, I feel super vindicated right now and I'm not gonna be reasonable this time.
These companies have no way out, they are going to die! All these people will lose their livelihood and worse their options to monetise their skillset/experience will be next to zero. Is this your utopia?!
I've been researching Ford for a while, they have so much debt and an extremely small margin for error for the EV transition. It was gonna be so tight and now their fate is sealed.
I'm not proud of this but a part of me find a bit of joy in what comes next. There is this Thanos side of me that feels like a grave injustice have been done here. These people have no right to have this much power over a company.
You really think a CEO isn't worth 300-400x more than a line worker? Honestly I can't fathom that level of ignorance/cognitive-dissonance.
Replace CEO with any sort of leadership role in any kind of organisation/entity with skin in the game (where outcomes can hurt). Whether if its football coaches, generals, head of state etc.
I know nobody (sane) disputes the difference between a c-suite employee vs a line worker but what I'm talking about is the exponential nature.
These people are barely human. Imagine the stakes, the leverage, the consequences and the sheer amount of context you need. Being in the top percentile of IQ, EQ, competence, industriousness etc are just tablestakes. You need to be ruthless while at the same time have an immense capacity for empathy. You need to be extremely conscientious/industrious while at the same time having a large reservoir of creativity. Its like the infinity stones, you can't just be a galaxy brain or just have the gift of the gab or be a psycopath. You need it all and more while competing against people just like you for rarified roles.
To top it off, all of this just gets you into the ring, you also need to actually win and win consistently over period of time. Usually this requires sacrificing your entire life. Btw this where the barely human part comes in, these people thrive on this. All these CEOs have enough money to retire on a beautiful ranch or oceanfront mansion, instead they work 70 hour weeks.
And you think these people are somewhat similar to the guy who screws in car parts? You think society should value these people in somewhat the same realm? like a linear nature (50% or 300% more).
This kind of thinking is what leads to the end of civilisations. These people should be revered. We should be grateful.
I still can't accept there are people in the world who think its somewhat similar. This is not an IQ thing, its not even a being well read thing.. This is common sense. We all have met people in our lives where we go "oh there are level to this game", like freaks of nature.
How can you not think its the same for you know, leading a multi billion dollar public corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees.. Its mind boggling. How can people no see the asymmetry!
> From 1978 to 2021, CEO pay grew by 1,460%, adjusted for inflation, versus just 18.1% for the typical worker. Why has the supply of CEOs not kept up with the demand for them? Surely, with the improvement in education and in increase in MBA programs, there must be far more CEOs today than in 1978. Why has the ratio of CEOs to Companies fallen by 14x for their wages to rise this much? /s As many argue, wages are only…
Not all jobs have quantitative measures for impact. The more a job is decoupled from a measurable value, the more likely that job is to be bid up to "as much as the company can afford." I've seen this in my career, the closer I get to "SRE" or "platform engineer" the more decoupled my salary has become from my actual measurable value. I'd articulate the thinking as, roughly: We know this role is important. We know th…
This is pretty much it. Everyone wants to avoid hiring a bad CEO so it’s a bidding war for executives with track records at large companies.
And when you’re making billions a year the CEO compensation is a drop in the bucket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support the workers' decision and negotiating on labor rates is the basis of our economic system. Get what you deserve. That said, the CEO pay is easily explainable: > Profits at the struck auto companies increased 92% from 2013 to 2022, totaling $250 billion, according to EPI > CEO pay at the Big Three has grown 40% in the last decade, according to EPI If you're the CEO of a company and you increased profits by 92…
> If you're the CEO of a company and you increased profits by 92% Did you ? Attributing all the success a company achieves to the CEO feels shortsighted. Aside from anything else: if all these companies saw their profits grow by so much surely there’s an external commonality there? “The CEO did it all” would be slightly more plausible if only one company experienced that success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody who is qualified to do it... I've worked with executives at that level, and let's face it-- most of us don't have the single-minded devotion to do it, nor the experience to manage thousands of people.
I do not understand people that believe all executive are useless and do nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My econ 101 talked about the difference between commodity and illiquid markets which explains the difference between worker and CEO pay. The CEOs are coming from a restricted group of insiders and can't be replaced because of their relationships which make them unique. Workers in the sectors most often unionized have few distinguishing characteristics from the perspective of the company and are thrown around by the s…
> The CEOs are coming from a restricted group of insiders and can't be replaced because of their relationships which make them unique. Wouldn’t that be simply favouritism/cronyism rather than a free market?