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

What Were We Thinking?

commonwealmagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#11

Post by geysersam »

monero-xmr wrote: post #6
paulpauper wrote: post #3

Ah, the rehashed CEO vs. employee pay statistic. Yes, this may be true for CEOs at the largest of companies which have a lot of employees. But the vast majority of companies are not multinationals. But I agree that the vast majority of fortune 500 CEOs seem overpaid relative to what they do or skill. I'm sure it's possible to find someone who can do a equal or even better job for only $500k of compensation, not tens…

If "the vast majority" of fortune 500 CEOs are overpaid, why do boards continue to hire people that get paid so much? Why do shareholders put up with it? Couldn't they just say, "We will pay half what the current CEO makes, who wants the job?" and get an endless line of qualified applicants? Or is it that when billions of dollars are on the line, quibbling over tens of millions is far too risky? I don't know about an…

> I don't think the market is wrong.

But the market can be wrong! In many situations. In fact, it's only "right" under the most ideal of circumstances, perfect information, perfect competition etc.

Then there's the question about what kind of right we're actually talking about here. To an ideal market, right is distributing resources to optimize profit. But if some people are less profitable than others, that clashes with other, arguably more natural, notions of "right".

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#12

Post by obscurette »

habibur wrote: post #4

Give equal reward to everyone regardless of their contribution or success, and people lose motivation for work. After a while the nation as a whole collapses. We have seen it in the communist era.

While I agree with the point, communist area just isn't good example of that. There were huge differences in wealth in communist society as well. It's probably because the pure communist society is impossible anyway - it's impossible to keep people away from maximizing their own well-being without violence.

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#13

Post by eastAligned »

monero-xmr wrote: post #6
paulpauper wrote: post #3

Ah, the rehashed CEO vs. employee pay statistic. Yes, this may be true for CEOs at the largest of companies which have a lot of employees. But the vast majority of companies are not multinationals. But I agree that the vast majority of fortune 500 CEOs seem overpaid relative to what they do or skill. I'm sure it's possible to find someone who can do a equal or even better job for only $500k of compensation, not tens…

If "the vast majority" of fortune 500 CEOs are overpaid, why do boards continue to hire people that get paid so much? Why do shareholders put up with it? Couldn't they just say, "We will pay half what the current CEO makes, who wants the job?" and get an endless line of qualified applicants? Or is it that when billions of dollars are on the line, quibbling over tens of millions is far too risky? I don't know about an…

Have a look at how the CEOs get their position in the first place; it's more of a network of people using their current positions to extract money while jerking each other off. It's not really a question of market effect or competence, it's more that if you try to find someone who asks for less and isn't in the network, the existing powers sink the stock price, buy shares and appoint a highly paid buddy to solve the problem they created in the first place.

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#14

Post by monero-xmr »

eastAligned wrote: post #13
monero-xmr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "the vast majority" of fortune 500 CEOs are overpaid, why do boards continue to hire people that get paid so much? Why do shareholders put up with it? Couldn't they just say, "We will pay half what the current CEO makes, who wants the job?" and get an endless line of qualified applicants? Or is it that when billions of dollars are on the line, quibbling over tens of millions is far too risky? I don't know about an…

Have a look at how the CEOs get their position in the first place; it's more of a network of people using their current positions to extract money while jerking each other off. It's not really a question of market effect or competence, it's more that if you try to find someone who asks for less and isn't in the network, the existing powers sink the stock price, buy shares and appoint a highly paid buddy to solve the…

If it's so easy go start your own Fortune 500 company, or figure out how to "jerk someone off" to get the job.

I think your cynical vision of how operating a large business works is wildly incorrect and is a left-wing fantasy.

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#15

Post by monero-xmr »

geysersam wrote: post #11
monero-xmr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "the vast majority" of fortune 500 CEOs are overpaid, why do boards continue to hire people that get paid so much? Why do shareholders put up with it? Couldn't they just say, "We will pay half what the current CEO makes, who wants the job?" and get an endless line of qualified applicants? Or is it that when billions of dollars are on the line, quibbling over tens of millions is far too risky? I don't know about an…

> I don't think the market is wrong. But the market can be wrong! In many situations. In fact, it's only "right" under the most ideal of circumstances, perfect information, perfect competition etc. Then there's the question about what kind of right we're actually talking about here. To an ideal market, right is distributing resources to optimize profit. But if some people are less profitable than others, that clashes…

I don't think the entire market is off by an order of magnitude for a huge group of people. There is a competitive market for competent CEOs and the pay reflects supply and demand.

Again, if you want to go throw your hat in the ring, be my guest. Clearly it's very easy to a lot of people here. Good luck

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#16

Post by habibur »

obscurette wrote: post #12
habibur wrote: post #4

Give equal reward to everyone regardless of their contribution or success, and people lose motivation for work. After a while the nation as a whole collapses. We have seen it in the communist era.

While I agree with the point, communist area just isn't good example of that. There were huge differences in wealth in communist society as well. It's probably because the pure communist society is impossible anyway - it's impossible to keep people away from maximizing their own well-being without violence.

How do you plan to force someone to work who isn't willing to, just to make sure everyone in the society gets equal wealth?

The communists had a solution.

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#17

Post by skybrian »

It seems like the question of “how could people have believed that” would be best answered by historians? And if this question is based on what you saw in a movie or novel, first you need to learn about how accurate it is. Did people really believe what you imagine they believed?

Bret Devereaux‘s writing particularly comes to mind. I liked his series about polytheism in ancient times:

https://acoup.blog/category/collections/practical-polytheism...

https://acoup.blog/2019/10/25/collections-practical-polythei...

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#18

Post by Apocryphon »

monero-xmr wrote: post #14
eastAligned wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a look at how the CEOs get their position in the first place; it's more of a network of people using their current positions to extract money while jerking each other off. It's not really a question of market effect or competence, it's more that if you try to find someone who asks for less and isn't in the network, the existing powers sink the stock price, buy shares and appoint a highly paid buddy to solve the…

If it's so easy go start your own Fortune 500 company, or figure out how to "jerk someone off" to get the job. I think your cynical vision of how operating a large business works is wildly incorrect and is a left-wing fantasy.

If you want to see how large numbers of such executives can all be wrong, you need only glance over at the front page of HN as of late, at the daily layoffs mea culpa letters.

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#19

Post by monero-xmr »

Apocryphon wrote: post #18
monero-xmr wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's so easy go start your own Fortune 500 company, or figure out how to "jerk someone off" to get the job. I think your cynical vision of how operating a large business works is wildly incorrect and is a left-wing fantasy.

If you want to see how large numbers of such executives can all be wrong, you need only glance over at the front page of HN as of late, at the daily layoffs mea culpa letters.

Yes I am sure you could do better and for only half the pay

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#20

Post by obscurette »

habibur wrote: post #16
obscurette wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with the point, communist area just isn't good example of that. There were huge differences in wealth in communist society as well. It's probably because the pure communist society is impossible anyway - it's impossible to keep people away from maximizing their own well-being without violence.

How do you plan to force someone to work who isn't willing to, just to make sure everyone in the society gets equal wealth? The communists had a solution.

Yes, it was called GULAG and immediately on top of that the class with "better than others" wealth appeared - guards etc.
Post reply on HN