CEO cuts his pay by almost $1M to give his employees big raises • Hacker News Board

Re: CEO cuts his pay by almost $1M to give his employees big raises

#101

Post by a_c_s » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 4:39 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #96

a_c_s wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but without a source this is just baseless cynicism. HN is supposed to be a place for intelligent discussion: giving unsourced cynicism equal weight as evidence is creating an echo chamber for pseudo-intellectuals to parrot their beliefs.

Or is this baseless trust of a CEO in an interview with the New York Times? Surely what you propose is not a trust model for a robust organism. Also, because somebody doubted the honesty of a CEO, you decide to talk about how they are a pseudo-intellectual in an echo chamber who parrots their baseless cynicism?

The burden of proof is on the cynic, not the person who is citing sources.

Re: CEO cuts his pay by almost $1M to give his employees big raises

#102

Post by brianfitz » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

a_c_s wrote: post #101

threatofrain wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or is this baseless trust of a CEO in an interview with the New York Times? Surely what you propose is not a trust model for a robust organism. Also, because somebody doubted the honesty of a CEO, you decide to talk about how they are a pseudo-intellectual in an echo chamber who parrots their baseless cynicism?

The burden of proof is on the cynic, not the person who is citing sources.

Assume I hire you as a manager in my organization and give you a hiring budget of $200k. You could decide that you want to hire 5 new college grads at $40k per year or 2 senior candidates at $100k each. Now assume that I tell you the minimum salary for any of your hires is $100k. My question to you:

What would be your incentive to hire two college grads you'll need to invest in training versus candidates with years of experience and skills?

Re: CEO cuts his pay by almost $1M to give his employees big raises

#103

Post by deong » Mon, Apr 20, 2015, 11:51 AM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #53

deong wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're buying the company for its "goodwill", why would you then very publicly torch that very same goodwill by laying off all the employees?

Because revenue needs to be greater than cost for a business to survive.

Of course, but my point is that you know this going in. The assumption was that you'd buy the company not because it was so insanely profitable, but because you reaped a PR benefit. So you buy the company for the sole reason that you look good for paying everyone well, and then take away all the money to increase profits. This makes no sense -- you look far worse PR-wise for revoking the raises than any benefit you originally got from buying them in the first place, and PR was your reason for the deal. This is like buying Santa's workshop so kids will like you and then executing all the elves.

You should have just bought a profitable company in the first place.