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

Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

dailytech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#111

Post by dredmorbius »

biot wrote: post #61
delinka wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEO takes two weeks off. What happens to the company? 10,000 "low-level" employees take two weeks off (all at once.) What happens to the company? Companies operate without CEOs while boards seek candidates. Companies can't produce product while it seeks 10,000 replacement workers. As long as we have the chief executive on one hand and the workers on the other, that is.

If you permanently eliminate the position for one line worker, there is essentially zero impact to the company; it continues along with only a 0.01% drop of efficiency. If you permanently eliminate the CEO position, there is multiple orders of magnitude greater impact to the company. That's why the compensation for each role is different.

You've just reiterated the value theory of labor, first expressed by Karl Marx.

I take it you're a Communist then, and follow Communist thinking in other economic thought as well.

The classical economic theory of pricing holds that goods (and labor) are exchanged at a point where the supply and demand curves cross. This, according to the principles of free markets as expressed first by Adam Smith and subsequently refined, and has certain prerequisites including low barrier to entry, equal access to information, fair and open competition (and a lack of collusion on the part of either buyers and sellers), and a clear understanding of value.

All of which undoubtedly hold true for the CEO employment market, I trust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#112

Post by woobles »

adestefan wrote: post #65
woobles wrote: post #32

One of my old bosses thought that all Lenovos possessed BIOS-level malware that could be activated at a moment's notice by the Chinese government should the US ever got to war with them. He was a weird dude.

I had a boss that thought the same thing. He shut up when we showed him an IBM branded ThinkPad with a "Made in China" sticker, but the new Lenovo branded ThinkPad had a "Made in Singapore" sticker.

That's JSUT what they want you to think!

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#113

Post by biot »

dredmorbius wrote: post #111
biot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you permanently eliminate the position for one line worker, there is essentially zero impact to the company; it continues along with only a 0.01% drop of efficiency. If you permanently eliminate the CEO position, there is multiple orders of magnitude greater impact to the company. That's why the compensation for each role is different.

You've just reiterated the value theory of labor, first expressed by Karl Marx. I take it you're a Communist then, and follow Communist thinking in other economic thought as well. The classical economic theory of pricing holds that goods (and labor) are exchanged at a point where the supply and demand curves cross. This, according to the principles of free markets as expressed first by Adam Smith and subsequently ref…

Oh jeez. Either I should have thought through my last sentence better, or followed my instinct by not participating in this discussion. You are correct on the supply & demand explanation. And no, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the communist party. :)

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#114

Post by biot »

larrys wrote: post #102
wtvanhest wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason he would have actually taken the $3m, then redistributed it. Sure, you can make that assumption but it is the least likely event happening possible.

"he would have actually taken the $3m" Story implies he received the money. "Rather than stuffing that big bonus away in his own bank account"

Fortunately, this story was written for average people to read and took liberties in the wording used, resulting in a possibly ambiguous interpretation. Had it been written in the precise language of tax accountants, such ambiguities would not be present and we would have been spared an entire thread of mental masturbation over the tax implications of such a disbursement.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#115

Post by dredmorbius »

biot wrote: post #113
dredmorbius wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've just reiterated the value theory of labor, first expressed by Karl Marx. I take it you're a Communist then, and follow Communist thinking in other economic thought as well. The classical economic theory of pricing holds that goods (and labor) are exchanged at a point where the supply and demand curves cross. This, according to the principles of free markets as expressed first by Adam Smith and subsequently ref…

Oh jeez. Either I should have thought through my last sentence better, or followed my instinct by not participating in this discussion. You are correct on the supply & demand explanation. And no, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the communist party. :)

I make the point because you're not the first person I've heard use the same argument.

Most recent that comes to mind was a banker interviewed on the BBC. I was listening, critically as I frequently do, and realized that the view he was espousing was flagrantly Marxist.

Amusing, that.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#116

Post by wtvanhest »

larrys wrote: post #102
wtvanhest wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason he would have actually taken the $3m, then redistributed it. Sure, you can make that assumption but it is the least likely event happening possible.

"he would have actually taken the $3m" Story implies he received the money. "Rather than stuffing that big bonus away in his own bank account"

The story doesn't necessarily reflect reality. It is always safe to assume what you know is probably true rather than trust an author who's job is to write quick and get hits on their site.

Like I said, it is extremely unlikely he put the money in his bank account, then sent it to employees.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#117

Post by rayiner »

dredmorbius wrote: post #111
biot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you permanently eliminate the position for one line worker, there is essentially zero impact to the company; it continues along with only a 0.01% drop of efficiency. If you permanently eliminate the CEO position, there is multiple orders of magnitude greater impact to the company. That's why the compensation for each role is different.

You've just reiterated the value theory of labor, first expressed by Karl Marx. I take it you're a Communist then, and follow Communist thinking in other economic thought as well. The classical economic theory of pricing holds that goods (and labor) are exchanged at a point where the supply and demand curves cross. This, according to the principles of free markets as expressed first by Adam Smith and subsequently ref…

I don't understand the down votes here. Other than the snark, it's right on point.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#118

Post by twoodfin »

rayiner wrote: post #91
sirclueless wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But think of the labor costs. Can you get a 20% better CEO with 3 million dollars? Probably. Can you get 10,000 line workers 20% better with 3 million dollars? Probably not. So even if the line workers are more important, a large CEO bonus may provide better value.

I'm not arguing that the CEO is overpaid. I'm pointing out that the amount the CEO is paid is not determined by value to the company, it's determined by supply and demand in the labor market.

But, and I shouldn't have to say this it's so obvious, there wouldn't be demand in the labor market for CEOs if boards/shareholders didn't think elite CEOs provided value. There has to be a strong correlation there or the inefficient company paying a low value CEO too much will be out-competed by another company with more sense.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#119

Post by twoodfin »

eliasmacpherson wrote: post #34
rayiner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Here in the US we have a cultural flaw where we irrationally conflate equilibria in the supply/demand of labor with distribution of credit for a company's success. The CEO gets paid a lot more because there is a much smaller supply of people who have the pedigree/qualifications to be CEO than to be a line worker. There is no chain of logic that can take you from there to the conclusion that he's more important t…

I would take 10,000 Nokia staff over Elop any day of the week.

Our numbers are getting out of hand here: Elop doesn't make close to 10,000x a typical engineer at Nokia.

Re: Lenovo CEO Gives His $3 Million Bonus to 10,000 Employees

#120

Post by Produce »

biot wrote: post #61
delinka wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEO takes two weeks off. What happens to the company? 10,000 "low-level" employees take two weeks off (all at once.) What happens to the company? Companies operate without CEOs while boards seek candidates. Companies can't produce product while it seeks 10,000 replacement workers. As long as we have the chief executive on one hand and the workers on the other, that is.

If you permanently eliminate the position for one line worker, there is essentially zero impact to the company; it continues along with only a 0.01% drop of efficiency. If you permanently eliminate the CEO position, there is multiple orders of magnitude greater impact to the company. That's why the compensation for each role is different.

>If you permanently eliminate the CEO position, there is multiple orders of magnitude greater impact to the company.

Then why do companies with flat hierarchies exist and operate just fine? You don't need someone at the top because you don't need a top.

See:

* http://mariewiere.com/2012/03/04/a-company-that-manages-with...

* http://agile-commentary.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/bees-self-org...

The interesting thing about people, and any social, intelligent agents is that they self-organize.

Even bees (intelligent, social agents) do this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/22/12611.full

So do ants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_self-organization_i...

We can even manage traffic without direction:

http://thecityfix.com/blog/naked-streets-without-traffic-lig...

The biggest myths of our societies are that we need a hierarchy, directions and managers. We're quite capable of leading ourselves and getting everything done. And more efficiently, no less.

Post reply on HN