3 ms·

You are giving the CEO credit for everything positive that the company does. Shouldn't some of the credit go to the workers? Not to mention, many companies are

• 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  No I'm not giving the CEO credit for everything positive that the company does. I said the CEO may generate tiny value for millions or billions of people. As a thought experiment, imagine a CEO of company making $5B/year of nebulous undefined "value" with 250M customers (roughly Spotify-ish?). That company's "value" per customer is about $20/year. Compared to a teacher, I think this company's impact per "customer" rounds basically to zero. Suppose the CEO is able to raise that "value" by 0.14%. Compared to the workers, it's still basically zero. Being less than three cents per customer per year, it's truly absurd compared to any teacher's impact per student per year. But it increases the company's $5B/yr by about $7M/yr. This is a CEO who creates (relatively speaking) practically none of the value of the firm, which in turn creates (relatively speaking) practically no value per customer, and yet because they just have so many customers the CEO has created $7M/year of value in this thought experiment. That's the average 0.01% household income. Small value over many people just seems to have more range than large value over few people.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• m0zg 7y ago
  Left to their own devices even the most talented of workers will not be able to make forward progress. Leadership structures must emerge, and compensation structures will emerge with them. It's up for debate whether CEOs deserve $100M/yr, but it's not up for debate that they can make or break a company.