4 ms·

Shareholders do decide. You seem to be implying that shareholders are being cheated, however, if they are actually unhappy they can a. sell (or not invest in th

Shareholders do decide. You seem to be implying that shareholders are being cheated, however, if they are actually unhappy they can a. sell (or not invest in the first place if they don't like the representation they'll receive), or b. vote in a new board, or c. sue. You are struggling hard to make a victim where everyone involved is happy.

wstrange 10y ago
I don't think it is that simple. There is a tremendous amount of back scratching that goes on when setting executive pay. The board hires pay consultants, the consultants are not going to rock the boat and suggest pay cuts, so they approve a nice increase over the current going rate. Rinse and repeat and you have out of control executive compensation. Majority shareholders are often in the same position - very well paid, and well connected with other CxOs. That leaves the rest of the shareholders along for the ride.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
> You are struggling hard Whenever I argue with a staunch defender of social inequality, the put-down tactics are par for the course. "You struggle", "you fail to comprehend the subtlety of the argument". If doesn't take a PhD in psychology to understand why that is. For someone to be pro social inequality, they must believe they are already topkek - or are standing a very good chance to make it. If that is the case, then it's a simple matter of statistics that any random stranger is likely placed lower in the pecking order. Therefore they must be "struggling" to comprehend, etc. There is no "struggle" when you're telling the truth. The higher cognitive load happens when you make stuff up from whole cloth - there are studies showing it, look it up. > everyone involved is happy In this reality, the trends in political news in the last several years show otherwise. Not sure about other realities.
gaius 10y ago
It's not even that. A high-paid CEO is a prestige thing, like a status symbol, for a corporation. "We are great because our leader is great and as proof look how much he/she gets paid". It's like an individual flashing their gold Rolex (or in Marissa Mayer's case, a Cartier).

wstrange 10y ago

I don't think it is that simple. There is a tremendous amount of back scratching that goes on when setting executive pay. The board hires pay consultants, the consultants are not going to rock the boat and suggest pay cuts, so they approve a nice increase over the current going rate. Rinse and repeat and you have out of control executive compensation. Majority shareholders are often in the same position - very well paid, and well connected with other CxOs. That leaves the rest of the shareholders along for the ride.

Florin_Andrei 10y ago

> You are struggling hard Whenever I argue with a staunch defender of social inequality, the put-down tactics are par for the course. "You struggle", "you fail to comprehend the subtlety of the argument". If doesn't take a PhD in psychology to understand why that is. For someone to be pro social inequality, they must believe they are already topkek - or are standing a very good chance to make it. If that is the case, then it's a simple matter of statistics that any random stranger is likely placed lower in the pecking order. Therefore they must be "struggling" to comprehend, etc. There is no "struggle" when you're telling the truth. The higher cognitive load happens when you make stuff up from whole cloth - there are studies showing it, look it up. > everyone involved is happy In this reality, the trends in political news in the last several years show otherwise. Not sure about other realities.

gaius 10y ago

It's not even that. A high-paid CEO is a prestige thing, like a status symbol, for a corporation. "We are great because our leader is great and as proof look how much he/she gets paid". It's like an individual flashing their gold Rolex (or in Marissa Mayer's case, a Cartier).