4 ms·

Because it's an expression of a corrupt system where CEO pay is public, and thus it's easy for candidates to negotiate, but employees are strongly discouraged f

by wrren 6y ago

Because it's an expression of a corrupt system where CEO pay is public, and thus it's easy for candidates to negotiate, but employees are strongly discouraged from sharing their own pay data or are prevented from seeing the company's own pay bands. Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Where employees who try to unionize are targeted by their employers and harassed out or outright fired because companies are terrified of collective bargaining.

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs has gotten shorter and shorter over the last decades. Finding a new job is also considerably harder, as the market size gets smaller and smaller the higher you go in the pyramid. There are bad and questionable reasons why compensations are high, but also some good and reasonable ones. If markets seem irrational, chances are good you don’t fully understand them.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  Most CEO's golden parachutes are worth more then some workers make in a decade or even their lifetime. It doesn't matter if they are at a higher risk of being fired or have a harder time finding a job afterwards.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > The average tenure of execs has gotten shorter and shorter over the last decades. "Reduced tenure" when you're making plenty more money than needed to avoid having to work the difference in the first place hardly seems like such a catastrophic outcome. So many people can only dream of making enough money so they can retire early and not have to work at all. I know if you pay me a million dollars I wouldn't exactly shed a tear if I don't find a job anytime soon. I'm not sure I'd be dying to look for one either, and if somehow I were, I wouldn't feel entitled to anyone's sympathy if I don't find one, let alone feel entitled to offloading my emotional "cost" onto their wallets. And I'm not even trying to take a side here. I do get that the situation is not as trivial as some portray it. But in your effort to illustrate that fact, you're oversimplifying massively in the other direction and ignoring some pretty salient facts. > You get fired easier I haven't particularly noticed CEOs match the turnover rates of their average employees, but I suppose you have data to the contrary and it's just my ignorance?
- pydry 6y ago
  Risky like when Adam Neumann was fired from WeWork with a $1.7 billion severance package? >If markets seem irrational, chances are good you don’t fully understand them. So not a racket then?
  - kakd 6y ago
    Neumann was a co-founder. Hired CEOs will almost never make it to billionaire status (Ballmer, Schmidt and Damon are the only notable exceptions I know of).
    - pydry 6y ago
      That might be so, yet it still seems that CEOs can do pretty magnificently out of being fired even when they fuck up really badly.
- tpetry 6y ago
  I wouldnt call being a highly paid ceo be „riskier“. The ones not fired because of fraud get a new position ant a new company again very „fast“. Even the incompetent ones with a track history of companies dying after they came.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  Obviously there’s more reasons to backstab when the pay is hundreds of times that of a regular employee
- Talanes 6y ago
  >You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time Your average retail worker is responsible for following confusing sets of rules that are rarely fully modeled, if even fully understood, while working under cameras that are selectively and obliquely monitored. If someone wants them fired, or the place just needs to reduce staff, providing a justification is very low-effort.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- quickthrower2 6y ago
  I’d love to see the gardens of these poor CEOs give the generous gardening leave arrangements being paid out when they are fired.

by wrren 6y ago

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago

> Where swathes of employees are let go when a company underperforms, but no-one is held accountable for making the strategic blunders that got them there. Execs should have more Skin in the Game. But it is also a fact that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the riskier your job gets. You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time and sometimes just for backstabbing/political reasons. The average tenure of execs has gotten shorter and shorter over the last decades. Finding a new job is also considerably harder, as the market size gets smaller and smaller the higher you go in the pyramid. There are bad and questionable reasons why compensations are high, but also some good and reasonable ones. If markets seem irrational, chances are good you don’t fully understand them.

Miner49er 6y ago
Most CEO's golden parachutes are worth more then some workers make in a decade or even their lifetime. It doesn't matter if they are at a higher risk of being fired or have a harder time finding a job afterwards.
mehrdadn 6y ago
> The average tenure of execs has gotten shorter and shorter over the last decades. "Reduced tenure" when you're making plenty more money than needed to avoid having to work the difference in the first place hardly seems like such a catastrophic outcome. So many people can only dream of making enough money so they can retire early and not have to work at all. I know if you pay me a million dollars I wouldn't exactly shed a tear if I don't find a job anytime soon. I'm not sure I'd be dying to look for one either, and if somehow I were, I wouldn't feel entitled to anyone's sympathy if I don't find one, let alone feel entitled to offloading my emotional "cost" onto their wallets. And I'm not even trying to take a side here. I do get that the situation is not as trivial as some portray it. But in your effort to illustrate that fact, you're oversimplifying massively in the other direction and ignoring some pretty salient facts. > You get fired easier I haven't particularly noticed CEOs match the turnover rates of their average employees, but I suppose you have data to the contrary and it's just my ignorance?
pydry 6y ago
Risky like when Adam Neumann was fired from WeWork with a $1.7 billion severance package? >If markets seem irrational, chances are good you don’t fully understand them. So not a racket then?
- kakd 6y ago
  Neumann was a co-founder. Hired CEOs will almost never make it to billionaire status (Ballmer, Schmidt and Damon are the only notable exceptions I know of).
  - pydry 6y ago
    That might be so, yet it still seems that CEOs can do pretty magnificently out of being fired even when they fuck up really badly.
tpetry 6y ago
I wouldnt call being a highly paid ceo be „riskier“. The ones not fired because of fraud get a new position ant a new company again very „fast“. Even the incompetent ones with a track history of companies dying after they came.
heavenlyblue 6y ago
Obviously there’s more reasons to backstab when the pay is hundreds of times that of a regular employee
Talanes 6y ago
>You get fired easier, in shorter amounts of time Your average retail worker is responsible for following confusing sets of rules that are rarely fully modeled, if even fully understood, while working under cameras that are selectively and obliquely monitored. If someone wants them fired, or the place just needs to reduce staff, providing a justification is very low-effort.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
quickthrower2 6y ago
I’d love to see the gardens of these poor CEOs give the generous gardening leave arrangements being paid out when they are fired.