3 ms·
CEO pay is not just supply and demand. You cannot even tell what "supply" even is, because "CEO supply" is nothing that can be well defined. You could make a lo
by ItsMe000001 8y ago
CEO pay is not just supply and demand. You cannot even tell what "supply" even is, because "CEO supply" is nothing that can be well defined. You could make a lot of people CEO from the 2nd and 3rd ranks who also have the experience and knowledge, or you can seek only people who already have been CEOs - which does not guarantee anything at all, because CEO success depends a lot on context and circumstances. CEO supply is extremely flexible based on psychology for one (who you are willing to accept for the role is extremely subjective and based on personal preferences), and can also very easily be changed through actions (whom do you give a chance to learn to lead, and how). So the possible "supply" of CEOs is decided on a whim to a large degree, based on subjectivity (even if it's attempted to be hidden by some "thorough search" - which uses those same subjective criteria and selection heuristics).
You misuse economic theory by simply using it to make unsubstantiatable claims pretending that it somehow proves anything as long as you use the right magic words from economic thinking.
- randomdata 8y ago> You cannot even tell what "supply" even is It’s pretty easy to figure out. Typically there will be exactly one person the board is willing to trust. It doesn’t matter how they reached that conclusion. Being the only person in the world deemed suitable for the task gives incredible leverage when demand is near infinite. > You misuse economic theory by simply using it to make unsubstantiatable claims It would appear that you’re simply overthinking this. We’re talking about basic supply and demand, not a complex economic theory. It is simply an observation of what people agree to. We call it basic because it doesn’t represent anything more.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago> We’re talking about basic supply and demand I refer to what was written above. The only "thinking" I can see on your side is how to prolong a non-argument - you just throw out random stuff, going for quantity and endless repetition, but there is not a coherent recognizable thought. Nice try, but I'd say after your first reply it turned into trolling. You are pretty good at saying a lot without saying anything at all though, I give you that much.
- randomdata 8y agoIf you don't understand my explanation you are welcome to ask questions. I also encourage you to refer to other sources on the internet that go into more detail that I ever could in a short comment. You don't have to assume someone is a troll just because a comment isn't perfectly eloquent.