4 ms·

> We can all yell "pay parity" and "tie CEO compensation to worker compensation", but there are trade-offs. It means high performers who earn their pay are more

> We can all yell "pay parity" and "tie CEO compensation to worker compensation", but there are trade-offs. It means high performers who earn their pay are more likely to go elsewhere, where they'll be properly compensated. Other than more than they're currently making, what does "properly compensated" mean? Should we not use our votes to help decide that? > Most likely, someone less qualified who is on the other side of the bell curve. Damn. Sucks for the board who chose a winner the first time and couldn't find another winner. > Business is complicated and the current policies were put in place with CAREFUL considerations of the trade-offs. If you don't understand them at a deep level, don't get involved. You're suggesting we all throw our hands up in the air and "let it be?" This is such a strange argument.

username444 7y ago
Re: proper compensation - this is a good question, and I don't have the answer to it. Headhunters might. Re: the rest - these are straw man arguments. I never made those claims. My only point was that the OP shouldn't feel bad about not voting. If he's uneducated and unqualified to understand on a business' operations, which we all are because we have LIVES outside of stalking a corporation, he should leave the well paid people to make those decisions. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. 99% of shareholders and employees within a company see a very very tiny sliver of what's really going on. If you dont like a company for a particular reason, simply dont put your money into it.