10 ms·

The era of distrust and disloyalty

72 points by joeyespo 11y ago

x0x0 11y ago
If you liked this, you may also like _Twilight of the Elites_ by Chris Hayes. It discusses the disillusionment many of us feel when we discover what our leaders and elites have gotten up to. http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-After-Meritocracy/dp/0307720462 http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-After-Meritocr...
carsongross 11y ago
The destruction of previously high-trust societies is the story of the west in the last forty years. It will be fascinating to read the eventual analysis.
- bsbechtel 11y ago
  A few years back there was a lot of talk about a coming digital dark age. Due to not a lack of information, but an overabundance of information and an inability to discern truth from fiction. I think we are arriving at that moment now.
PavlovsCat 11y ago
> Simplicity, usefulness, functionality, details and facts, transparency; these are the pillars of the new digital design. We trust what we can quickly and easily use but only as long as it’s useful. Design for use. Design for usefulness. Amen! That reminded me of an essay I love dearly: http://fadeyev.net/moral-design/ http://fadeyev.net/moral-design/
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gizi 11y ago
Imagine a company doing $10 billion in yearly revenue. If the right guy manages the joint, it will do $11 billion. Are you willing to pay 10 million a year for this person? What if another company in similar circumstances offers 20 million? And another company 50 million? In the end, they all have 1 billion at stake. So, they all could even offer more and still be laughing all the way to the bank. In other words, even if a CEO could only make a difference of 10% on a large company's revenues, it would still be worth it to pay him incredibly large amounts of money. Apple paying Steve Jobs $50 billion would still have been a very cheap bargain. He made a difference of way more than that.
- AlexB138 11y ago
  The studies sited in the article directly contradict your statement, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
- pitay 11y ago
  The same could be said for any other employees. Programmers, warehouse workers or whatever. Maybe they could be paid for the difference they make too. Yet this doesn't happen, because the supply side is important as well, as well as the lack of power these people have. From what I see, finding the right guy to manage a company is very hit and miss in the real world. Just look at Ron Johnson. He was previously senior vice president of retail operations at Apple, and then hired as CEO of J.C. Penny. He was fired as CEO from J.C. Penny in 2013, after retail sales were down by 32% and stock prices fell steeply. This was despite him having a very successful tenure at Apple. The pricing should factor in the uncertainty and risk of the performance of someone in the position of CEO. I have probably have not touched most of things that could be issues here, such as corruption, and that some CEOs are just extremely incompetent. I remember a CEO that was given 250 million dollars to leave because he had that much negative impact on the company he was running. This was someone that the board thought was a great hire. Anyway, I find the post I am replying to is way too simplistic and looks at CEOs with extremely rose coloured glasses. There is a lot more to consider.
  - blfr 11y ago
    The same could be said for any other employees. Programmers, warehouse workers or whatever. Some programmers, maybe, but very few could move large company's revenue by 10%. And almost certainly no one moving physical stuff around in a warehouse could.
    - falcolas 11y ago
      > no one moving physical stuff around in a warehouse could [move large company's revenue by 10%] Sure they could. They're the feet on the ground, so to say, and so they have the best insight into inefficiencies which are occurring on a day-to-day basis. You can bet it wasn't a CEO who discovered UPS' "only make right turns" trick. Or Bezos who optimized Amazon's warehouses. A 10% reduction in costs is very realistic for these kinds of finds, and those reduction in costs are worth more than a 10% increase in revenue.
Donwangugi 11y ago
One item I believe that is missing from this obersavation is that modern design is all about getting the user to trust and love the product. In reality users should treat their products with more respect than trust, especially when considering privacy and security concerns. Even if something is useful, that does not mean it should be trusted.
dualogy 11y ago
"We are seeing the emergence of an anti-visual design movement, as more and more customers are becoming distrustful of smiling faces, soft tones and soft language." Not seeing that yet but it can't come soon enough.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Ultimately little will change but the tactics. The propaganda industry has learned time and time again that ever more "personalization" is an ever greater means to control people as they become so wrapped up in their primitive desires they ignore the blatant manipulation being performed by them. The hippies thought that consumerism's end was just around the corner. Then Madison Avenue learned the value in simulating self-actualization, and catering to those desires. The hippies became the hipsters.
  - hderms 11y ago
    Did you watch "The Century of the Self", by chance? Great movie, either way.
    - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      Once you see a film like that, it's impossible to get it out of your head.
profeta 11y ago
compelling example but naive. it fails to look at how social media is evolving to handle that as well. Companies PR are now abandoning the smiling white families in banners because they know it won't work. They are now using your relatives smiles. We are eating the same spin, but now it is disguised as our friends' opinions.
kfk 11y ago
Putting things in perspective: half million makes up to about 20-25k per month once you take out taxes in Europe. While huge, it is not incredibly huge. A semi-decent doctor can get close to that amount (it's easy when you charge euro 100 per visit and you forget to pay taxes). I am just saying that paychecks tend to be overestimated by people in the low to medium income brackets. Most of those half million folks work 24/7. Once you divide by the amount of crazy hours they work, they are making more or less like a decently paid engineer... I am more upset by how much doctors make, for many of them in the end do an office job (they don't have hundreds of families futures in their hands). Also because, in many cases, those incomes are high because of stupid laws rather than market value. While CEO do tend to be more on market value.
- SwellJoe 11y ago
  "While CEO do tend to be more on market value." When market value is set by the CEOs themselves, the trend in market value is ever upward, as long as there is no pressure in the opposite direction. The highest paid executives have seen their share of the pie grow drastically over the past couple of decades, while fantasy stories of their importance and value get passed around to convince everyone that a CEO making 250 times the average worker salary is perfectly reasonable. Competence has value, but the royal treatment of C-levels is absurd.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The market value is set by the board of directors, not CEOs. Furthermore, supposing there were some sort of absentee owner effect (boards of directors are comprised of other CEOs, and they conspire to raise each other's pay), you'd expect to see a different market value in closely held corporations. Strangely, the price of a CEO for a closely held corporation closely tracks the price of a CEO for absentee shareholders. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2424&context=dlj http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... The obvious way to fix this is with increased shareholder activism (ala Gordon Gekko), and reducing regulations on hostile takeovers. Possibly also regulating things like poison pills, staggered board elections, etc. Do you favor such rule changes? If not, why not?
jondubois 11y ago
Farmers have often been at the mercy of corporations and it's not uncommon for them rise up and form their own unions in an attempt to sell directly to customers. Modern capitalism rewards those who can capture value over the those who create value. It's not about the product or service; the scales are tipped in favor of those who have access to the money (essentially; those who have access to the customers). That's why marketing is such a powerful force in our society. People tend to trust marketing more than they trust their own senses... A lot of popular brands offer horrible quality products - Particularly in the food industry, but that doesn't stop people from consuming them to great excess.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > the scales are tipped in favor of those who have access to the money Yup, pretty much. Turns out Piketty (and before him, Marx) are right. Of course, since democracy depends on marketing, politicians have done a great job marketing a political system that doesn't work for the common person, yet they still vote for it. As long as they have a shiny toy in their hands, and something to entertain (distract) them, the masses are placated...

72 points by joeyespo 11y ago

x0x0 11y ago

If you liked this, you may also like _Twilight of the Elites_ by Chris Hayes. It discusses the disillusionment many of us feel when we discover what our leaders and elites have gotten up to. http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-After-Meritocracy/dp/0307720462 http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-After-Meritocr...

carsongross 11y ago

The destruction of previously high-trust societies is the story of the west in the last forty years. It will be fascinating to read the eventual analysis.

bsbechtel 11y ago
A few years back there was a lot of talk about a coming digital dark age. Due to not a lack of information, but an overabundance of information and an inability to discern truth from fiction. I think we are arriving at that moment now.

PavlovsCat 11y ago

> Simplicity, usefulness, functionality, details and facts, transparency; these are the pillars of the new digital design. We trust what we can quickly and easily use but only as long as it’s useful. Design for use. Design for usefulness. Amen! That reminded me of an essay I love dearly: http://fadeyev.net/moral-design/ http://fadeyev.net/moral-design/

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

gizi 11y ago

Imagine a company doing $10 billion in yearly revenue. If the right guy manages the joint, it will do $11 billion. Are you willing to pay 10 million a year for this person? What if another company in similar circumstances offers 20 million? And another company 50 million? In the end, they all have 1 billion at stake. So, they all could even offer more and still be laughing all the way to the bank. In other words, even if a CEO could only make a difference of 10% on a large company's revenues, it would still be worth it to pay him incredibly large amounts of money. Apple paying Steve Jobs $50 billion would still have been a very cheap bargain. He made a difference of way more than that.

AlexB138 11y ago
The studies sited in the article directly contradict your statement, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
pitay 11y ago
The same could be said for any other employees. Programmers, warehouse workers or whatever. Maybe they could be paid for the difference they make too. Yet this doesn't happen, because the supply side is important as well, as well as the lack of power these people have. From what I see, finding the right guy to manage a company is very hit and miss in the real world. Just look at Ron Johnson. He was previously senior vice president of retail operations at Apple, and then hired as CEO of J.C. Penny. He was fired as CEO from J.C. Penny in 2013, after retail sales were down by 32% and stock prices fell steeply. This was despite him having a very successful tenure at Apple. The pricing should factor in the uncertainty and risk of the performance of someone in the position of CEO. I have probably have not touched most of things that could be issues here, such as corruption, and that some CEOs are just extremely incompetent. I remember a CEO that was given 250 million dollars to leave because he had that much negative impact on the company he was running. This was someone that the board thought was a great hire. Anyway, I find the post I am replying to is way too simplistic and looks at CEOs with extremely rose coloured glasses. There is a lot more to consider.
- blfr 11y ago
  The same could be said for any other employees. Programmers, warehouse workers or whatever. Some programmers, maybe, but very few could move large company's revenue by 10%. And almost certainly no one moving physical stuff around in a warehouse could.
  - falcolas 11y ago
    > no one moving physical stuff around in a warehouse could [move large company's revenue by 10%] Sure they could. They're the feet on the ground, so to say, and so they have the best insight into inefficiencies which are occurring on a day-to-day basis. You can bet it wasn't a CEO who discovered UPS' "only make right turns" trick. Or Bezos who optimized Amazon's warehouses. A 10% reduction in costs is very realistic for these kinds of finds, and those reduction in costs are worth more than a 10% increase in revenue.

Donwangugi 11y ago

One item I believe that is missing from this obersavation is that modern design is all about getting the user to trust and love the product. In reality users should treat their products with more respect than trust, especially when considering privacy and security concerns. Even if something is useful, that does not mean it should be trusted.

dualogy 11y ago

"We are seeing the emergence of an anti-visual design movement, as more and more customers are becoming distrustful of smiling faces, soft tones and soft language." Not seeing that yet but it can't come soon enough.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Ultimately little will change but the tactics. The propaganda industry has learned time and time again that ever more "personalization" is an ever greater means to control people as they become so wrapped up in their primitive desires they ignore the blatant manipulation being performed by them. The hippies thought that consumerism's end was just around the corner. Then Madison Avenue learned the value in simulating self-actualization, and catering to those desires. The hippies became the hipsters.
- hderms 11y ago
  Did you watch "The Century of the Self", by chance? Great movie, either way.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Once you see a film like that, it's impossible to get it out of your head.

profeta 11y ago

compelling example but naive. it fails to look at how social media is evolving to handle that as well. Companies PR are now abandoning the smiling white families in banners because they know it won't work. They are now using your relatives smiles. We are eating the same spin, but now it is disguised as our friends' opinions.

kfk 11y ago

Putting things in perspective: half million makes up to about 20-25k per month once you take out taxes in Europe. While huge, it is not incredibly huge. A semi-decent doctor can get close to that amount (it's easy when you charge euro 100 per visit and you forget to pay taxes). I am just saying that paychecks tend to be overestimated by people in the low to medium income brackets. Most of those half million folks work 24/7. Once you divide by the amount of crazy hours they work, they are making more or less like a decently paid engineer... I am more upset by how much doctors make, for many of them in the end do an office job (they don't have hundreds of families futures in their hands). Also because, in many cases, those incomes are high because of stupid laws rather than market value. While CEO do tend to be more on market value.

SwellJoe 11y ago
"While CEO do tend to be more on market value." When market value is set by the CEOs themselves, the trend in market value is ever upward, as long as there is no pressure in the opposite direction. The highest paid executives have seen their share of the pie grow drastically over the past couple of decades, while fantasy stories of their importance and value get passed around to convince everyone that a CEO making 250 times the average worker salary is perfectly reasonable. Competence has value, but the royal treatment of C-levels is absurd.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The market value is set by the board of directors, not CEOs. Furthermore, supposing there were some sort of absentee owner effect (boards of directors are comprised of other CEOs, and they conspire to raise each other's pay), you'd expect to see a different market value in closely held corporations. Strangely, the price of a CEO for a closely held corporation closely tracks the price of a CEO for absentee shareholders. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2424&context=dlj http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... The obvious way to fix this is with increased shareholder activism (ala Gordon Gekko), and reducing regulations on hostile takeovers. Possibly also regulating things like poison pills, staggered board elections, etc. Do you favor such rule changes? If not, why not?

jondubois 11y ago

Farmers have often been at the mercy of corporations and it's not uncommon for them rise up and form their own unions in an attempt to sell directly to customers. Modern capitalism rewards those who can capture value over the those who create value. It's not about the product or service; the scales are tipped in favor of those who have access to the money (essentially; those who have access to the customers). That's why marketing is such a powerful force in our society. People tend to trust marketing more than they trust their own senses... A lot of popular brands offer horrible quality products - Particularly in the food industry, but that doesn't stop people from consuming them to great excess.

Mikeb85 11y ago
> the scales are tipped in favor of those who have access to the money Yup, pretty much. Turns out Piketty (and before him, Marx) are right. Of course, since democracy depends on marketing, politicians have done a great job marketing a political system that doesn't work for the common person, yet they still vote for it. As long as they have a shiny toy in their hands, and something to entertain (distract) them, the masses are placated...