3 ms·

I would agree with that point if it would result in CEOs being less hard working people. What all people want is a stable, save, maybe a little boring, positio

by erikb 9y ago

I would agree with that point if it would result in CEOs being less hard working people. What all people want is a stable, save, maybe a little boring, position that shows other people they are respectable and that pays the monthly bills. But not even the highest level of employee has that safety any more. And while they get more money even when they get fired, a fired CEO is still considered a loser, just as you and me, and they fear being considered a loser just as much as you and me. And maybe what increases their pressure back to the sam level as ours is that their failure is way more public than ours. If you lose your job and you get a new one, you can pretend everything is just as it was before. They can not. Everybody has seen the articles in the news paper and know some (true or not) reasons for why they failed.

eropple 9y ago
A fired CEO of a company in the orbit we're talking about (I mean, I'm the "CEO" of a company, but I obviously am not pulling in a hojillion dollars a year in revenue, so, different thing) doesn't need to ever work again. A CEO might be "labor", sure, but they are compensated sufficiently to de facto buy into capital in a way even people not too many percentiles down never, ever can. This is a difference of kind. The question here isn't "do you work hard," it's "are you labor or have you capital", and the difference when the latter is true is overwhelmingly transformative compared to when only the former is true.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  I'd go farther to say at most large-ish companies, even one level down (sometimes two) from the CEO means you'll never have to work again in your life. I think people forget just how much these senior executives make.
- erikb 9y ago
  Hm, you are right. It's more nuanced than I first considered.
- prostoalex 9y ago
  There's some survivorship bias due the "orbit we're talking about". The reason the new CEO is coming into place is that the old one didn't work out as intended, and the board has set its sight on someone they think would do a better job. Such desirable person is usually not living off unemployment benefits, is comfortable financially already, therefore has little motivation to jump ship unless he gets a substantial increase in pay. The board could potentially hire via an ad in the paper or a temp agency advertising a salary at 50c above minimum, saving stockholders (themselves included) massive amounts of money, but yet even the most financially stingy and cost-hawking shareholders - private equity folks and activist shareholders - usually don't resort to that.
  - eropple 9y ago
    Sure. If they're under consideration for such a job, what I said more often than not holds true, too. We're fundamentally not talking about "labor" in the sense that erikb was using it, we're talking about labor-with-capital-access and that's just a straight-up different story.

by erikb 9y ago

eropple 9y ago

A fired CEO of a company in the orbit we're talking about (I mean, I'm the "CEO" of a company, but I obviously am not pulling in a hojillion dollars a year in revenue, so, different thing) doesn't need to ever work again. A CEO might be "labor", sure, but they are compensated sufficiently to de facto buy into capital in a way even people not too many percentiles down never, ever can. This is a difference of kind. The question here isn't "do you work hard," it's "are you labor or have you capital", and the difference when the latter is true is overwhelmingly transformative compared to when only the former is true.

ryandrake 9y ago
I'd go farther to say at most large-ish companies, even one level down (sometimes two) from the CEO means you'll never have to work again in your life. I think people forget just how much these senior executives make.
erikb 9y ago
Hm, you are right. It's more nuanced than I first considered.
prostoalex 9y ago
There's some survivorship bias due the "orbit we're talking about". The reason the new CEO is coming into place is that the old one didn't work out as intended, and the board has set its sight on someone they think would do a better job. Such desirable person is usually not living off unemployment benefits, is comfortable financially already, therefore has little motivation to jump ship unless he gets a substantial increase in pay. The board could potentially hire via an ad in the paper or a temp agency advertising a salary at 50c above minimum, saving stockholders (themselves included) massive amounts of money, but yet even the most financially stingy and cost-hawking shareholders - private equity folks and activist shareholders - usually don't resort to that.
- eropple 9y ago
  Sure. If they're under consideration for such a job, what I said more often than not holds true, too. We're fundamentally not talking about "labor" in the sense that erikb was using it, we're talking about labor-with-capital-access and that's just a straight-up different story.