3 ms·
This argument is fucking ludicrous. Money is money. If the business used to have it and now the CEO has it then the business gave it to him. There's no class
by CPLX 6y ago
This argument is fucking ludicrous.
Money is money. If the business used to have it and now the CEO has it then the business gave it to him.
There's no class of equity that wasn't originally created and owned by the business so that's where the money comes from.
And lest there be any confusion, all the companies we're talking about do massive stock buy backs so it's not even hypothetical, they spend billions of dollars to prop up the price of stocks and the executives get it.
- missedthecue 6y agoIt is not "fucking ludicrous". Both stock comp and cash comp are the same from the shareholders view. They are not the same from the employees view. A higher cash comp for CEOs may well result in lower employee pay, a higher stock comp will not.
- CPLX 6y ago> A higher cash comp for CEOs may well result in lower employee pay, a higher stock comp will not. Why? The whole point of publicly traded stock is that it's, like traded, in public. That means it's freely exchanged for cash in a matter of seconds. If the company can use it to compensate one person it can use it to compensate another person. What's your theory here, is it that the company has a resource that can generate compensation without any consequence to the company's finances, but it's only possible to give that compensation to certain people?