31–40 of 70 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any company where the CEO makes over 25 times the average worker is mismanaged. Are they honestly suggesting that the CEO gets 200 times more work in, or has 200 times the experience, or maybe 200 times the connections? Or some combination? Which is it?
What the CEO really has is 200x the affect on the company. A 15m bonus for a CEO may sound ridiculous but if picking that CEO led the company to 50m increase in revenue over an average CEO than it was well worth it to hire them. Or at least, that's how CEOs sell themselves. I think that idea makes sense, but only if the company does well. If it doesn't the execs still have the power to grant themselves massive bonuse…
A CEO who acts like a true owner would know this and reallocate salaries as needed to keep employees happy and motivated.
Left out Imperva, which was bought by Thoma Bravo in January. 150 people let go while the CEO makes $15 million. Mismanaged incentives - employees don't matter, just shareholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you drive down to San Jose you'll see several companies with a SAP logo who have been bought in the last 10 years in the HR space, e.g. SuccessFactors (2011).
And if your company uses SuccessFactors you can see how little they’ve invested in engineering lately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marx had a lot of ideas; some of them were probably good. Involving workers in the ownership of companies seems like a good idea even if Marx supported it. Marxism as practiced in places like, eg, Russia fell down because they disrupted the ability of the market to send and receive accurate price signals and over time that led to catastrophically misallocated resources. Many of the people who want socialism seem to s…
> Russia fell down because they disrupted the ability of the market to send and receive accurate price signals and over time that led to catastrophically misallocated resources. This is extremely ahistorical. The fall of the USSR was due to Gorbachev's decision to introduce "western" markets into Russia and Yeltsin's opportunism. Growth and stability weren't flagging in the Soviet Union until they attempted to privat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marx had a lot of ideas; some of them were probably good. Involving workers in the ownership of companies seems like a good idea even if Marx supported it. Marxism as practiced in places like, eg, Russia fell down because they disrupted the ability of the market to send and receive accurate price signals and over time that led to catastrophically misallocated resources. Many of the people who want socialism seem to s…
> Russia fell down because they disrupted the ability of the market to send and receive accurate price signals and over time that led to catastrophically misallocated resources. This is extremely ahistorical. The fall of the USSR was due to Gorbachev's decision to introduce "western" markets into Russia and Yeltsin's opportunism. Growth and stability weren't flagging in the Soviet Union until they attempted to privat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the CEO really has is 200x the affect on the company. A 15m bonus for a CEO may sound ridiculous but if picking that CEO led the company to 50m increase in revenue over an average CEO than it was well worth it to hire them. Or at least, that's how CEOs sell themselves. I think that idea makes sense, but only if the company does well. If it doesn't the execs still have the power to grant themselves massive bonuse…
I really like this thoughtful reply. One thing to add: it's unlikely that the CEO's performance will change that much after a certain payout. S/he will likely put in the same effort beyond some compensation figure, if only because most want to succeed first and foremost for their pride. A CEO who acts like a true owner would know this and reallocate salaries as needed to keep employees happy and motivated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Russia fell down because they disrupted the ability of the market to send and receive accurate price signals and over time that led to catastrophically misallocated resources. This is extremely ahistorical. The fall of the USSR was due to Gorbachev's decision to introduce "western" markets into Russia and Yeltsin's opportunism. Growth and stability weren't flagging in the Soviet Union until they attempted to privat…
They were slowly decaying like Cuba is doing now. Same for East Germany. There wasn’t much growth going on. Stability only in the sense of stagnation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marx had a lot of ideas; some of them were probably good. Involving workers in the ownership of companies seems like a good idea even if Marx supported it. Marxism as practiced in places like, eg, Russia fell down because they disrupted the ability of the market to send and receive accurate price signals and over time that led to catastrophically misallocated resources. Many of the people who want socialism seem to s…
As implemented in the current US economy, those price signals are also suppressed through collusion, cronyism, and near monopolies so it's not an exclusive issue of socialism implementations. Many markets are stagnant and do not offer healthy competition. There's a fair share of markets that still offer healthy competition, but from my perspective, it seems like the end goal of market optimization almost inevitably l…
