3 ms·

To comment on one of the sentiments in the last paragraph. I often find myself wondering about the people doing the bidding above them where they are the last o

by awat 8y ago

To comment on one of the sentiments in the last paragraph. I often find myself wondering about the people doing the bidding above them where they are the last one compensated on a middle-upper class level before the VP or CEO or whoever that makes the 100X worker salary. What motivates that person? I’m sure they are compensated very well but at an exponentially lower rate than the will they are serving.

mseebach 8y ago
You seem to imply that those top people receiving these large compensations are obviously unfairly and massively overpaid, and that this is an uncontroversial fact. This clearly isn't the perception at that level. At least some number of people at the board level, as well as presumably these top people themselves, probably don't share that view[1]. This probably extends to the layers immediately beneath them. I know from my own work that I'm not bothered by the fact that other people I sometimes interact with (I'm not the last layer before them nor do I think "doing their bidding" accurately describes my relationship with them) are paid significantly more than I am. I can plainly see that they are bringing skills and experience to the table that I or others at "my level" simply do not have. 1: Never mind the fact that the market also doesn't agree. The departure of a good CEO can move the market cap by a substantial multiple of the CEOs compensation.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  It is an uncontroversial fact - or at least it should be, because it's an objective fact that productivity capture has slanted towards the highest pay levels over recent decades, with devastating effects on economic security lower down the ladder. Why should your personal opinion - "I'm not bothered" - be a political universal? The reality is that there are increasing numbers of people who used to have steady jobs, and now have gig economy pseudo-slavery which barely makes rent, if at all. This is an unstable basis on which to run a large economy. Market cap is not the only measure of economic effectiveness. If all the rhetoric about "highly paid job creators" doesn't lead to the creation of real jobs, what use is it?
- heurist 8y ago
  This article on CEO compensation packages is relevant: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/how-companies-decide-ceo-pay/530127/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/how-com... > Through the 1970s—when the ratio of CEOs’ pay to that of the average worker was much lower, at somewhere between 20:1 and 30:1—the lodestar was “internal equity,” or how an executive’s pay compared with that of other employees in the company. A nascent industry, executive-compensation consulting, changed this. Consultants recommended switching to “external equity,” meaning compensation would be based on what other CEOs were paid. This was merely a useful sales tool—even though the consultants didn’t have solid evidence or theoretical justification for this method, they could attract business by vowing to set ambitious goals for their clients. Still, corporations adopted the standard of external equity, and CEOs got a lot richer.
charlesdm 8y ago
Why? Because 1) if the person above you leaves, you might get his position, and 2) you might be able to move up, but in a different company.

by awat 8y ago

mseebach 8y ago

You seem to imply that those top people receiving these large compensations are obviously unfairly and massively overpaid, and that this is an uncontroversial fact. This clearly isn't the perception at that level. At least some number of people at the board level, as well as presumably these top people themselves, probably don't share that view[1]. This probably extends to the layers immediately beneath them. I know from my own work that I'm not bothered by the fact that other people I sometimes interact with (I'm not the last layer before them nor do I think "doing their bidding" accurately describes my relationship with them) are paid significantly more than I am. I can plainly see that they are bringing skills and experience to the table that I or others at "my level" simply do not have. 1: Never mind the fact that the market also doesn't agree. The departure of a good CEO can move the market cap by a substantial multiple of the CEOs compensation.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
It is an uncontroversial fact - or at least it should be, because it's an objective fact that productivity capture has slanted towards the highest pay levels over recent decades, with devastating effects on economic security lower down the ladder. Why should your personal opinion - "I'm not bothered" - be a political universal? The reality is that there are increasing numbers of people who used to have steady jobs, and now have gig economy pseudo-slavery which barely makes rent, if at all. This is an unstable basis on which to run a large economy. Market cap is not the only measure of economic effectiveness. If all the rhetoric about "highly paid job creators" doesn't lead to the creation of real jobs, what use is it?
heurist 8y ago
This article on CEO compensation packages is relevant: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/how-companies-decide-ceo-pay/530127/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/how-com... > Through the 1970s—when the ratio of CEOs’ pay to that of the average worker was much lower, at somewhere between 20:1 and 30:1—the lodestar was “internal equity,” or how an executive’s pay compared with that of other employees in the company. A nascent industry, executive-compensation consulting, changed this. Consultants recommended switching to “external equity,” meaning compensation would be based on what other CEOs were paid. This was merely a useful sales tool—even though the consultants didn’t have solid evidence or theoretical justification for this method, they could attract business by vowing to set ambitious goals for their clients. Still, corporations adopted the standard of external equity, and CEOs got a lot richer.

charlesdm 8y ago

Why? Because 1) if the person above you leaves, you might get his position, and 2) you might be able to move up, but in a different company.