4 ms·

Free market people understand these things pretty easily. I do not see why you are finding it hard. One obvious fallacy in your statement is that someone gettin

Free market people understand these things pretty easily. I do not see why you are finding it hard. One obvious fallacy in your statement is that someone getting paid infinite money for talent. I have not seen any such examples so far beside Pentagon who get paid more and more irrespective of their incompetence.

maxxxxx 8y ago
For example CEO salaries have been increasing rapidly for several decades. Are they so much better now than 40 or more years ago?
- 5DFractalTetris 8y ago
  Their business intelligence practice has gotten so much faster that they're probably planning 100 years out.
  - Applejinx 8y ago
    To people following the way market whims have affected corporate planning, this is an extremely humorous hypothesis. No, I don't think that they are.
    - 5DFractalTetris 8y ago
      Interesting. I notice I have been downvoted as well. Thanks for the slap on the back, everybody.
      - Applejinx 8y ago
        That part wasn't me, and I'm not in the least mad :) It's just that the subject is extremely important, though it's seemingly not related to 'truck driver shortage'. Part of the problem with seeking to first justify the way our economics are structured, and then explain the outcomes, is that it ignores externalities that can be important. You could take the opposite tack and begin from 'wealthy people are inherently evil' and probably be almost as wrong, but then you'd be arguing a deeply anarchic position where leadership is only dominance and subjugation. That ignores things like Elon Musk's elaborate, sci-fi goals which are clearly that of a nerd writ large, and not simply a pointy-hair CEO guy wanting only wealth. The truth is a lot simpler: value is what you're able to make happen, but compensation is sheer social engineering. CEO pay has absolutely nothing to do with whether they're more useful as a class than truck drivers. I think some of them are more useful than truck drivers, and some are not.
    - jaggederest 8y ago
      It's even more severely the opposite. Instead of planning for a decade, they're planning for the quarterly results call in ~3 months, maximum. Like selling and leasing back real estate, which often pumps up cash flow for a few quarters and then cripples the company with operational expenditures instead of appreciating as land tends to do.
- Karishma1234 8y ago
  CEO salaries are not infinite; they are huge but not infinite. If Tim cook continues to ask for more and more and more eventually he will lose his job. But CEO salary has nothing to do with the `Talent`. Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella all replaced their predecessors pretty well and will be replaced by someone better in future too. The real reason for high CEO salaries is mostly about risk associated with replacement. Sundar Pichai got paid $100M in years 2015. Which looks high but when you realise there are 20M shares of Google it is merely $5 per share. If you are a Google shareholder would you risk Google's steady growth for a $5 dividend per year ? Will you waste your time saving $100M or rather focus on empowering Sundar to find next $10B market to disrupt ? CEO salaries are high and they will soar with time too as corporations become large and government regulations increase. As regulations and size of corporations increase a person friends with Ajit Pai would matter more than a person willing to take a pay cut. As a free market person I have no problem understanding it. Whether it is desirable, good or bad those are value judgements but there is no magic or hidden conspiracies at play here. P.S. : I think Sundar is getting paid really pennies. Justin Bieber made $80 Millions in year 2016. He is just a singer (and a bad one at it). Sundar on other hand is spearheading a company that forms the brain of our civilisational progress at the moment, responsible for employing millions across the globe and saving billions for entire humanity.
  - petra 8y ago
    Are corporations better managed today, than a few decades ago, when CEO's earned much less ?
    - Karishma1234 8y ago
      Why do you think that there should be any correlation between how better they are managed and CEO salary ? There may be there may not be it is irrelevant.
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        I thought the quality of management is the way productivity of a CEO is managed. So there should be a connection between that and his pay.
mcguire 8y ago
Software development.

maxxxxx 8y ago

For example CEO salaries have been increasing rapidly for several decades. Are they so much better now than 40 or more years ago?

5DFractalTetris 8y ago
Their business intelligence practice has gotten so much faster that they're probably planning 100 years out.
- Applejinx 8y ago
  To people following the way market whims have affected corporate planning, this is an extremely humorous hypothesis. No, I don't think that they are.
  - 5DFractalTetris 8y ago
    Interesting. I notice I have been downvoted as well. Thanks for the slap on the back, everybody.
    - Applejinx 8y ago
      That part wasn't me, and I'm not in the least mad :) It's just that the subject is extremely important, though it's seemingly not related to 'truck driver shortage'. Part of the problem with seeking to first justify the way our economics are structured, and then explain the outcomes, is that it ignores externalities that can be important. You could take the opposite tack and begin from 'wealthy people are inherently evil' and probably be almost as wrong, but then you'd be arguing a deeply anarchic position where leadership is only dominance and subjugation. That ignores things like Elon Musk's elaborate, sci-fi goals which are clearly that of a nerd writ large, and not simply a pointy-hair CEO guy wanting only wealth. The truth is a lot simpler: value is what you're able to make happen, but compensation is sheer social engineering. CEO pay has absolutely nothing to do with whether they're more useful as a class than truck drivers. I think some of them are more useful than truck drivers, and some are not.
  - jaggederest 8y ago
    It's even more severely the opposite. Instead of planning for a decade, they're planning for the quarterly results call in ~3 months, maximum. Like selling and leasing back real estate, which often pumps up cash flow for a few quarters and then cripples the company with operational expenditures instead of appreciating as land tends to do.
Karishma1234 8y ago
CEO salaries are not infinite; they are huge but not infinite. If Tim cook continues to ask for more and more and more eventually he will lose his job. But CEO salary has nothing to do with the `Talent`. Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella all replaced their predecessors pretty well and will be replaced by someone better in future too. The real reason for high CEO salaries is mostly about risk associated with replacement. Sundar Pichai got paid $100M in years 2015. Which looks high but when you realise there are 20M shares of Google it is merely $5 per share. If you are a Google shareholder would you risk Google's steady growth for a $5 dividend per year ? Will you waste your time saving $100M or rather focus on empowering Sundar to find next $10B market to disrupt ? CEO salaries are high and they will soar with time too as corporations become large and government regulations increase. As regulations and size of corporations increase a person friends with Ajit Pai would matter more than a person willing to take a pay cut. As a free market person I have no problem understanding it. Whether it is desirable, good or bad those are value judgements but there is no magic or hidden conspiracies at play here. P.S. : I think Sundar is getting paid really pennies. Justin Bieber made $80 Millions in year 2016. He is just a singer (and a bad one at it). Sundar on other hand is spearheading a company that forms the brain of our civilisational progress at the moment, responsible for employing millions across the globe and saving billions for entire humanity.
- petra 8y ago
  Are corporations better managed today, than a few decades ago, when CEO's earned much less ?
  - Karishma1234 8y ago
    Why do you think that there should be any correlation between how better they are managed and CEO salary ? There may be there may not be it is irrelevant.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      I thought the quality of management is the way productivity of a CEO is managed. So there should be a connection between that and his pay.

mcguire 8y ago

Software development.