61–70 of 112 posts
Anyone else notice that the comments at washingtonpost.com are more insightful and succinct than here at HN?
I'm seeing the standard "1%" and Disgruntled of Tunbridge Wells type comments that you see under every newspaper article and not a great deal of insight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the underlying problem here is managerialism [1], which is mainly a cultural problem [2]. The way that one solves cultural problems is mainly by talking about them. If enough people are saying, "Hey, this prohibition thing doesn't work," and do it for long enough, then eventually the unquestioned cultural assumptions dissolve. So my question for you is: why are you standing in the way of people doing somethin…
Culture? Surely the legal framework and tax environment of corporations could be adjusted to fix at least part of that problem.
Managerial pay has gone up not because executives are hundreds of times smarter or more competent than a couple generations back. It's because the cultural notion of executives as a higher corporate caste has become much stronger.
In other words, it's not that we rationally measured the value of CEOs and paid them accordingly. It's that we stopped really thinking about it. In, more ore less, the same way that people stopped thinking rationally about drugs for some decades. The change in marijuana laws in the US is now happening not because of new facts, but because of new attitudes.
A shift away from managerialist thinking might similarly trigger new laws. But I doubt it will work the other way around. Especially given the new research showing that laws basically respond only to the interest of rich people and businesses: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...
Anyone else notice that the comments at washingtonpost.com are more insightful and succinct than here at HN?
Can you point out three insightful comments from below the Washington Post piece? (Time of posting ~16:19 GMT.) I'm seeing the standard "1%" and Disgruntled of Tunbridge Wells type comments that you see under every newspaper article and not a great deal of insight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing we can do, really. Money is very close to power, and obviously the relatively poor (those who rely on a salary) have far less say and control than the extravagantly paid (those who do not require a salary). It is a fundamental trait of our free and capitalist society. We're merely mourning obvious inefficiencies, "bugs" in the convoluted system of laws and philosophies and culture that govern our soc…
I don't think engineers earning six figures are relatively poor. You should learn what poor is before you say something like that. They are solidly middle class in one of the most prosperous times to be middle class. And the middle class is designed to sit between the upper (capital owners) and the lower. You're paid to augment their capital. So if they get filthy rich off of your work, despite their bad decisions, i…
I was with you until this part. You can't just tell people they don't need their current resident city or country or what schools they(or their children) need.
Running away from a problem is almost never the right solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the underlying problem here is managerialism [1], which is mainly a cultural problem [2]. The way that one solves cultural problems is mainly by talking about them. If enough people are saying, "Hey, this prohibition thing doesn't work," and do it for long enough, then eventually the unquestioned cultural assumptions dissolve. So my question for you is: why are you standing in the way of people doing somethin…
Let me know how that works. The have-nots complaining about the haves being unworthy is probably the most discussed topic in the history of humanity.
I think it has a reasonable chance of working for managerialism over the next couple of decades for a few reasons.
One is the giant spike in inequality. The elite are capturing more and more of the money, causing more and more resentment.
Another is the shift in public communication. For a while, most of the information people received was filtered through mass media. The internet has made it much harder for moneyed interests to dominate what people see. HN is a great example; I'll probably read 5x the words from commenters versus the original article, and much of it is contrary or probing. And a lot of what is linked here is not commercial media; it's individuals publishing directly.
A third is a shift in communication costs. Large companies had a major advantage when communication was hard and expensive. But now that it's free and easy, people have less need to work in highly controlled corporate structures. Thus the rise in freelancing and entrepreneurship. It also makes it much easier for people to switch jobs, reducing the effective power of a managerial elite.
I think those together are having interesting effects. It's my hope that we'll shift back toward seeing executives as stewards of valuable organizations of people, and less treating them as magic sources of all value.
It's really sad how wildly distorted executive compensation has gotten. The best phrase I heard was "entrepreneurial reward for managerial duty", and I fear it's become all-too-common. My eyes popped out of my head recently when I saw that Coca-Cola (yes, that same drink company that's done just fine for over a hundred years and whose organic growth rate might be 1% if they're lucky) was trying to give management $13…
Conventional theories of exec compensation being so high either (1) what market can bear or (2) board/mgmt agency problem out of control. Alternate theory is exec comp so high as insurance policy against catastrophic visible public failure; exec firings can be career ending. From this standpoint, top exec especially at highly visible and controversial public co should demand a lot due to career risk of failure. Particularly since exec blowups at this level not always based on performance; can be lots of political juju, need for fall guy, etc. Fourth theory, however, my personal favorite—exec comp so high as motivation/prize for best lower-level people to stay at big company. Versus leaving to go to increasingly attractive (1) venture-backed startups or (2) private-equity-backed buyouts. I.e. paying a few people at the top a huge amount of money keeps lots of lower level people on the hook due to enticing future payoff. My guess: exec comp levels go up from here, as end markets get larger, tech & market change happens faster, and jobs get more dangerous. http://pmarcatweetsasblogposts.tumblr.com/post/73998948125/w...
It's really sad how wildly distorted executive compensation has gotten. The best phrase I heard was "entrepreneurial reward for managerial duty", and I fear it's become all-too-common. My eyes popped out of my head recently when I saw that Coca-Cola (yes, that same drink company that's done just fine for over a hundred years and whose organic growth rate might be 1% if they're lucky) was trying to give management $13…
Side note: asset bubbles pop. Executive pay is not an asset. I don't know where you work or what you do for a living, but I've heard a similar rant about executive pay from hundreds of people, whereas I've only ever seen a handfull of people trying to do something about it. So, I propose to you, if this hurts your sensibilities so much, what are you doing about it? Are you continuing to feed the machine by working as…
It's different than the typical asset bubble in that most of the people setting executive pay are also executives. But it could still just as well be a bubble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing we can do, really. Money is very close to power, and obviously the relatively poor (those who rely on a salary) have far less say and control than the extravagantly paid (those who do not require a salary). It is a fundamental trait of our free and capitalist society. We're merely mourning obvious inefficiencies, "bugs" in the convoluted system of laws and philosophies and culture that govern our soc…
I don't think engineers earning six figures are relatively poor. You should learn what poor is before you say something like that. They are solidly middle class in one of the most prosperous times to be middle class. And the middle class is designed to sit between the upper (capital owners) and the lower. You're paid to augment their capital. So if they get filthy rich off of your work, despite their bad decisions, i…
Not really. If you earn $120k a year (just over 6 figures) you're in the top 10% of income earners in the US. The fact that you think they're 'middle class' (and relatively speaking, I don't think you're wrong) is indicative of how bad the wealth gap has gotten.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think engineers earning six figures are relatively poor. You should learn what poor is before you say something like that. They are solidly middle class in one of the most prosperous times to be middle class. And the middle class is designed to sit between the upper (capital owners) and the lower. You're paid to augment their capital. So if they get filthy rich off of your work, despite their bad decisions, i…
>>You don't need to live in the Bay Area. You don't need the best schools. You don't need fancy new tech toys. You don't even need US. You choose to be a part of the middle class in order to receive those luxuries. I was with you until this part. You can't just tell people they don't need their current resident city or country or what schools they (or their children) need. Running away from a problem is almost never…
I agree with that sentiment, it's the advice I generally give people who are in a bad situation. But if you look at it from the country's perspective it feels like avoiding the problem, and isn't a solution.
It's really sad how wildly distorted executive compensation has gotten. The best phrase I heard was "entrepreneurial reward for managerial duty", and I fear it's become all-too-common. My eyes popped out of my head recently when I saw that Coca-Cola (yes, that same drink company that's done just fine for over a hundred years and whose organic growth rate might be 1% if they're lucky) was trying to give management $13…
Here is Marc Andreeseen's interesting take on why exec compensation maybe high: Conventional theories of exec compensation being so high either (1) what market can bear or (2) board/mgmt agency problem out of control. Alternate theory is exec comp so high as insurance policy against catastrophic visible public failure; exec firings can be career ending. From this standpoint, top exec especially at highly visible and…
Is correlation causation in this case? Seems like it's worth exploring. I don't know how boards get away with the gigantic exit packages though, except that it's probably because all these C-level execs sit on each others' boards.
As for career-ending, how does this explain things like Robert Nardelli? Personally, the only thing I see ending an exec's career is prison.