4 ms·
>I think the question PG needs to address is this: what is the justification for non-founder executives getting paid tens of millions of dollars at the expense
by phaus 11y ago
>I think the question PG needs to address is this: what is the justification for non-founder executives getting paid tens of millions of dollars at the expense of other employees? What is the justification for those top-level salaries to exist even when the company is doing badly and regular employees don't see a dime in raises or bonuses that year?
I definitely agree that its a shitty situation. However, as far as I understand it the justification is that executive salaries are public which led to a salary arms-race where companies are forced to throw more and more ridiculous sums of money at executives.
- CPLX 11y agoThat's the convenient dodge. The source of the problem whereby the trustees of publically owned companies both determine and benefit from high salaries is plainly obvious as a principal-agent problem.
- ubernostrum 11y agoThere's a reason why in the US, the federal Constitution contains explicit clauses to stop things like Congress voting themselves an unaccountable salary increase (it can't take effect for any individual member until after their next election) or creating/giving raises to other government positions they'll switch into (after creating or raising the pay of a position, they become ineligible to hold it until after their term in Congress expires -- which led to some interesting debates over whether it's legal to reduce a previously-raised salary to its original level in order to appoint a current member of Congress to it).