5 ms·

The benefits should go to whoever is responsible for the success of the company. This obviously opens up a political can of worms: the Left will say the CEO can

The benefits should go to whoever is responsible for the success of the company. This obviously opens up a political can of worms: the Left will say the CEO can't get anything done without the workers, the Right will say the workers can't get organized without the CEO (eg: what was Apple doing before Steve Jobs came back?). The workers can obviously leave and seek employment elsewhere. So can the CEO. For better or worse, the data presented in the parent post indicate that the market seems to be increasingly siding with the CEO-side of the above argument. I am not really sure that there's a simple regulatory move that would negate that (eg: you can cap salaries, but CEOs make most of their money from stocks. You might be able to cap how much stock a hired CEO can own, but most of the wealthiest people like Bezos and Zuck are founders).

coldtea 6y ago
>The benefits should go to whoever is responsible for the success of the company. This obviously opens up a political can of worms: the Left will say the CEO can't get anything done without the workers, the Right will say the workers can't get organized without the CEO And a pragmatism can say that all kinds of CEOs have driven companies to the ground, reducing their valuation even 1/10 what it was, and destroying their market share, and walked away just fine, with golden parachutes and even bonuses... CEOs get more because CEOs get to determine what they get (and the board members and execs rub each other's back when it comes to their collective advantages). It has little to do with performance and "whoever is responsible for the success of the company".
- tjs8rj 6y ago
  A sharper metric: it tends to do with whoever is responsible for the success of the company at the least cost to shareholders. Imagine a company starting out. If they need you to join or they fail, and they can get you for 1% of the company, that founder is rewarded incredibly for securing you with very minor cost to the company, making them rich and you not, even if you are responsible for the success of the company. The reason being: if you’re so integral why didn’t you start your own company and keep all the equity? Why didn’t you bargain for more? Capitalism doesn’t make any prescriptions about what should happen, it’s just a system where individuals make consensual transactions and the chips fall where they do. In the above scenario, whether the founder “deserved” to be rich or not doesn’t matter, because you “made” them rich with your consensual transaction. As long as we are all free to be the founders or the employees, I don’t see why there should be some moral issue there. If your effort is worth more to others, either you need to haggle harder, start your own company, or you’re lying to yourself. Everyone is a stock in capitalism, that’s all that is true. Everyone sets the value of each other’s labor and capital. If your stock isn’t doing so hot it’s because others aren’t buying it.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    The problem with this position is its naivety. Are you going to say with a straight face that all potential founders are equally likely to be funded by investors purely on their probability of success, and not via false signals and stereotyping if not straight up bigotry? That there aren't credentials that can be effectively bought to gain access to that? Markets are just markets, not oracles of unbiased merit. Making whatever the market does morally normative as you're doing is frankly, evil. They're useful tools, but that is all. They should not be a religion.
    - aerosmile 6y ago
      That argument sounds familiar, but it's not reflected in the latest YC stats (32% of founders come from underrepresented groups). I feel good knowing that one of the fastest career paths in the history of the world has a 32% admission rate to practically anyone anywhere in the world (again, if you're feeling down about your chances as a US citizen, spend a minute talking to one of the Nigerians in YC and your perspective with change instantly).
      - coldtea 6y ago
        >I feel good knowing that one of the fastest career paths in the history of the world has a 32% admission rate to practically anyone anywhere in the world Anybody, as long as they had a westernized upbringing, access to computers and education, and a middle class or higher status in their country...
        aerosmile 6y ago
        Fair enough. But having all those things in Nigeria still puts you way behind someone who was born into a poor family in the US (out of around 200 founders I met at YC, far more of them reminded me of Garry Tan - who is awesome! - than of the Winklevoss twins). It's not ideal in either case, but some things are less ideal than others.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

>The benefits should go to whoever is responsible for the success of the company. This obviously opens up a political can of worms: the Left will say the CEO can't get anything done without the workers, the Right will say the workers can't get organized without the CEO And a pragmatism can say that all kinds of CEOs have driven companies to the ground, reducing their valuation even 1/10 what it was, and destroying their market share, and walked away just fine, with golden parachutes and even bonuses... CEOs get more because CEOs get to determine what they get (and the board members and execs rub each other's back when it comes to their collective advantages). It has little to do with performance and "whoever is responsible for the success of the company".

tjs8rj 6y ago
A sharper metric: it tends to do with whoever is responsible for the success of the company at the least cost to shareholders. Imagine a company starting out. If they need you to join or they fail, and they can get you for 1% of the company, that founder is rewarded incredibly for securing you with very minor cost to the company, making them rich and you not, even if you are responsible for the success of the company. The reason being: if you’re so integral why didn’t you start your own company and keep all the equity? Why didn’t you bargain for more? Capitalism doesn’t make any prescriptions about what should happen, it’s just a system where individuals make consensual transactions and the chips fall where they do. In the above scenario, whether the founder “deserved” to be rich or not doesn’t matter, because you “made” them rich with your consensual transaction. As long as we are all free to be the founders or the employees, I don’t see why there should be some moral issue there. If your effort is worth more to others, either you need to haggle harder, start your own company, or you’re lying to yourself. Everyone is a stock in capitalism, that’s all that is true. Everyone sets the value of each other’s labor and capital. If your stock isn’t doing so hot it’s because others aren’t buying it.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  The problem with this position is its naivety. Are you going to say with a straight face that all potential founders are equally likely to be funded by investors purely on their probability of success, and not via false signals and stereotyping if not straight up bigotry? That there aren't credentials that can be effectively bought to gain access to that? Markets are just markets, not oracles of unbiased merit. Making whatever the market does morally normative as you're doing is frankly, evil. They're useful tools, but that is all. They should not be a religion.
  - aerosmile 6y ago
    That argument sounds familiar, but it's not reflected in the latest YC stats (32% of founders come from underrepresented groups). I feel good knowing that one of the fastest career paths in the history of the world has a 32% admission rate to practically anyone anywhere in the world (again, if you're feeling down about your chances as a US citizen, spend a minute talking to one of the Nigerians in YC and your perspective with change instantly).
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >I feel good knowing that one of the fastest career paths in the history of the world has a 32% admission rate to practically anyone anywhere in the world Anybody, as long as they had a westernized upbringing, access to computers and education, and a middle class or higher status in their country...
      - aerosmile 6y ago
        Fair enough. But having all those things in Nigeria still puts you way behind someone who was born into a poor family in the US (out of around 200 founders I met at YC, far more of them reminded me of Garry Tan - who is awesome! - than of the Winklevoss twins). It's not ideal in either case, but some things are less ideal than others.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago