151–160 of 357 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
can we argue carbon footprint?
A tank is 1 mpg. I am guessing they are not driving more than 1 or 2 miles on an excursion. This is hardly harmful to the environment compared to other entertainment options.
Imma call for a citation from ya
I am extremely skeptical that at the higher levels of CEO pay there is any marginal utility. I just don’t think the improved management quality you get from an additional $1M is actually making the company more than $1M in profits. Seems like a failure of markets
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that trash? I would love to drive and shoot a real tank as a civilian.
- Ecological impact - finances that could feed/house/treat people - reinforces militant/gun culture - wear on roads
Am I being sarcastic? Not even I am sure. The arguments are truthful. But the fairest way to organise things is that people who made a big economic contribution (represented by money) should be allowed to waste a similar-magnitude-but-smaller amount of resources. That is, ironically, the path to prosperity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow sports, but at least those people are doing actual, physically comparable things with clear connections to revenue (more like music artists than CEOs). Maybe that analogy is more apt than you intended though, in that the valuations are made for shallow human/society reasons that are quite decoupled from reality.
There are many players who don't live up to their $100MM+ contracts. I fail to understand why physicality should be relevant to high compensation.
Do you have examples? The ticket sales alone that big name players drive to home games make far more than 100MM over the course of their contacts.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/294166/toronto-blue-jays...
That doesn't even include all the merchandise and the food/drink sales and all the other benefits that come from signing big name stars. The CEO of a company doesn't have the same "star" power a pro athlete, musician, or actor has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are running something worth over $1 trillion that makes hundreds of billions of dollars per year it makes sense though, right? You can argue even a mediocre CEO could do ok, and I’d agree, but at the same time you could easily justify paying huge amounts of money to get a CEO who will only perform better by 1%/year. To me it’s really the size of the big tech companies that’s mind boggling. The fact companies t…
>If you are running something worth over $1 trillion that makes hundreds of billions of dollars per year it makes sense though, right? But he isn't running it. He has legal control over it, but in terms of sweat equity he only gets 24 hours in the day like everyone else and you can't tell me he somehow converts that to 1000x the labor of an average, capable, willing, working employee.
Yes, I can't tell you that because CEO isn't about labor.
I can tell you that impact of decisions of the CEO that I work for is at least 1000x bigger than mine.
If you don't believe that I don't know what to tell you.
CEO is not about writing lines of code, he doesn't write 1000x more LoC than I do, but he has at least 1000x more impact than I do.
You think great CEOs like Satya of MSFT or Dr. Lisa Su of AMD aren't at least 1000x average employee?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you are running something worth over $1 trillion that makes hundreds of billions of dollars per year it makes sense though, right? But he isn't running it. He has legal control over it, but in terms of sweat equity he only gets 24 hours in the day like everyone else and you can't tell me he somehow converts that to 1000x the labor of an average, capable, willing, working employee.
Jobs and Nadella certainly did contribute more than 1000x the labor of a [...] employee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Ecological impact - finances that could feed/house/treat people - reinforces militant/gun culture - wear on roads
While we're on it, can we get some negative energy for holidays in general? It bugs me that most people have no savings and then we have people just swanning around burning resources for fun. The waste of drawing hard-working people into the tourism sector when they could be working on improving their own communities directly is just appalling. Let alone the environmental damage caused by the travel and the lost prod…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is a $1.6T company. For a guy that runs it to earn $200 M a year is basically nothing. Can he do good enough of job? Great, he's then definitely worth it (and, actually, he's worth much more).
> (and, actually, he's worth much more). Bullshit. Fucking nonsense, bullshit. I fail to understand how thinking people could ever believe that this is true - it's got to be innumeracy and a healthy dose of propaganda. Would Google lose the now-equivalent of 200m annual if any one of the top 100 leaders within the corp ascended to the goddamned throne? Fuck no. It's nonsense to believe any one person is worth compens…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are your thoughts on NFL player Josh Allen having a $250MM contract? I fail to understand why there is more controversy over CEO pay than athletes.
Because it's easier to measure an athlete's performance than to measure a CEO's. And athletes usually have no right to fire people (at least not a lot of people at once).
Tom Brady famously got Gronk out of retirement and Brown was on the team because of Brady despite having a horrible reputation and being essentially blacklisted from the NFL.
Star players are a dime a dozen in professional sports and I don't think their influence on the team makeup is as rare as you think. In fact, a big name star might have _more_ hiring power than a typical CEO in a public company.
> Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai was awarded compensation worth more than $225 million in 2022 I know this has been discussed here and 225MM is like the salary of 1000 employees making 200K for only one year, it is stock which is volatoile, that the salary of a CEO is impossible to measure, bla bla bla. But holy guacamole, whatever is the angle I look at it 225MM pear year does not make any f_ing sense to me and it is si…
Just to be fair, for 90% of the world, the kinds of compensation many hacker news readers have (a Silicon Valley engineer who gets a high base plus bonus plus equity) would also be considered “holy guacamole, whatever is the angle I look at it … does not make any f_ing sense”