4 ms·

You are not qualified to judge what others deserve. Steph Curry's net worth is $44M and I don't think anybody deserves $44networth for being good at throwing ba

by tn13 11y ago

You are not qualified to judge what others deserve. Steph Curry's net worth is $44M and I don't think anybody deserves $44networth for being good at throwing balls through hoops. But it is market that often determines these numbers and we simply do not possess the information to look at all those variables.

moonshinefe 11y ago
Someone's opinion on what someone deserves in relation to someone else has nothing to do with market value quite often. It's not a hard distinction.
nihonde 11y ago
His net worth isn't based on being able to throw balls through hoops; it's based on his ability to attract and retain a huge audience for advertisers.
- Reedx 11y ago
  Yep. To be one of the best at throwing balls through hoops is no small feat, and the market has shown that lots of people will buy tickets and merchandise as a result. Therefore he's worth the $. It's also a very risky and short lived career.
- tn13 11y ago
  Doesn't matter. I dont think advertisers should pay that much money to him. Case in point is that worth of Mayers might depend on far too many factors which we cant comprehend and we must not judge her.
  - nihonde 11y ago
    Advertisers are notoriously poor at proving ROI, so you could be right in your assessment of his worth to them. Anyway, if putting a ball through a hoop was a bankable skill, this guy would be a billionaire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_DQXEK764 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_DQXEK764
7952 11y ago
Corporations constantly decide what people deserve. They also have mechanisms for deciding if a high value deal is risky, unnecessary, or poor value for money. Because those rules are flouted when hiring CEO's a huge amount of risk is created. That threat (of a bad CEO) is mitigated by trying to hire and retain "the best", and consequentially the most expensive. It all makes sense because they have you over a barrel. The problem is that companies are over reliant on a single leadership figure. This makes little sense in large companies with lots of complex divisions and interests. Does it really make sense to rely on a single person to guide the company?
tmptmp 11y ago
You are not qualified to tell others to not to judge what yet others deserve. Everybody is entitled to (and must) have a opinion and judgment on such issues. Having an opinion is an important function of education and it's an indicator too. It's altogether different point what market gives to that person. Market generally rewards anyone irrespective of their actual merits, because market works on apparent merits and anyone good at selling themselves succeed. Ponzi was a very good example of how markets work. [1] Yahoo as well might have allowed itself to get "ponzied". That's their foolishness and they are paying its price. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme Edit: typo and added link
marincounty 11y ago
Steph Curry proves what he is worth weekly. I've stopped trying to figure out how American companies decide what to pay CEOs, especially new hires. It seems like the hire, and pay of most CEOs is more akin to running for a political office? I've been close to two BOD CEO hires. They were just small non-profits, but both were very similar. They looked at the usual resume, but there was a lot of "Do we like this person? Does he/she look the part? We all don't like X, let's give this Y a shot?" In other words it was a popularity contest. The way CEOs, I saw, get the job, made as much sense as the way we vote for a president.
inthewoods 11y ago
Yes, but what happens to his salary if he stops performing individually? Does he get a huge bonus if he blows his ACL? Does he get a huge bonus if the team loses in the first round? The downside protection afforded to CEOs is ridiculous - heads I win, tails you lose.
chris_wot 11y ago
I'd love to know who is qualified to judge what others deserve...

by tn13 11y ago

moonshinefe 11y ago

Someone's opinion on what someone deserves in relation to someone else has nothing to do with market value quite often. It's not a hard distinction.

nihonde 11y ago

His net worth isn't based on being able to throw balls through hoops; it's based on his ability to attract and retain a huge audience for advertisers.

Reedx 11y ago
Yep. To be one of the best at throwing balls through hoops is no small feat, and the market has shown that lots of people will buy tickets and merchandise as a result. Therefore he's worth the $. It's also a very risky and short lived career.
tn13 11y ago
Doesn't matter. I dont think advertisers should pay that much money to him. Case in point is that worth of Mayers might depend on far too many factors which we cant comprehend and we must not judge her.
- nihonde 11y ago
  Advertisers are notoriously poor at proving ROI, so you could be right in your assessment of his worth to them. Anyway, if putting a ball through a hoop was a bankable skill, this guy would be a billionaire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_DQXEK764 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG_DQXEK764

7952 11y ago

Corporations constantly decide what people deserve. They also have mechanisms for deciding if a high value deal is risky, unnecessary, or poor value for money. Because those rules are flouted when hiring CEO's a huge amount of risk is created. That threat (of a bad CEO) is mitigated by trying to hire and retain "the best", and consequentially the most expensive. It all makes sense because they have you over a barrel. The problem is that companies are over reliant on a single leadership figure. This makes little sense in large companies with lots of complex divisions and interests. Does it really make sense to rely on a single person to guide the company?

tmptmp 11y ago

You are not qualified to tell others to not to judge what yet others deserve. Everybody is entitled to (and must) have a opinion and judgment on such issues. Having an opinion is an important function of education and it's an indicator too. It's altogether different point what market gives to that person. Market generally rewards anyone irrespective of their actual merits, because market works on apparent merits and anyone good at selling themselves succeed. Ponzi was a very good example of how markets work. [1] Yahoo as well might have allowed itself to get "ponzied". That's their foolishness and they are paying its price. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme Edit: typo and added link

marincounty 11y ago

Steph Curry proves what he is worth weekly. I've stopped trying to figure out how American companies decide what to pay CEOs, especially new hires. It seems like the hire, and pay of most CEOs is more akin to running for a political office? I've been close to two BOD CEO hires. They were just small non-profits, but both were very similar. They looked at the usual resume, but there was a lot of "Do we like this person? Does he/she look the part? We all don't like X, let's give this Y a shot?" In other words it was a popularity contest. The way CEOs, I saw, get the job, made as much sense as the way we vote for a president.

inthewoods 11y ago

Yes, but what happens to his salary if he stops performing individually? Does he get a huge bonus if he blows his ACL? Does he get a huge bonus if the team loses in the first round? The downside protection afforded to CEOs is ridiculous - heads I win, tails you lose.

chris_wot 11y ago

I'd love to know who is qualified to judge what others deserve...