5 ms·

> what can you possibly do that justifies making $100 MM a year? Decide on a course of action for a large company that, over the next few years, makes it $5 bi

> what can you possibly do that justifies making $100 MM a year? Decide on a course of action for a large company that, over the next few years, makes it $5 billion instead of $4 billion.

adriancr 5y ago
Could someone else have done the same action / achieve the same thing? If yes, then it's not justified. Large companies do not revolve around a single person (if it's not tesla/spacex, apple in early 2000, early microsoft)
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Steve Ballmer quitting as CEO increased Microsoft's market cap by over a billion dollars. If someone can be worth a negative billion I see no reason a different person can't be worth a billion. What you are worth and what you get paid aren't the same, obviously. That depends on outside options, how much beter you are than the next best, replacability, productivity. But while large companies do not revolve around a single person one person leaving can be worth more or less arbitatry amounts. Notch made a billion dollars prety much single handed.
- waterhouse 5y ago
  Suppose person A has a 50% chance of making the right decision, and person B has a 70% chance. Person B is then worth paying up to $200M more. Or, if you end up making ten decisions like this per year, then even 52% vs 50% would be worth the same amount. When you're managing enormously valuable properties, even small increases in performance can be worth a lot.
  - adriancr 5y ago
    How would someone even measure those percentages?, what happens if someone hired is the reverse is true, being 30% right?, is that even observable?, would compensation be negative? Otherwise, without being able to objectively measure this then it's all smoke and mirrors and the persons reach these positions through other means. If that's the case, then taxing an appropriate amount is fair. There's also a precedent with Roosevelt introducing a tax that only really applied to Rockefeller
    - grapist420 5y ago
      I mean you can just think about “would I rather have CEO musk / bezos or CEO drunk BPD girl”. It’s not actually based on percentages
      - adriancr 5y ago
        I did have a musk/jobs/gates/exceptional people exception :). Also depends, if you're an oil company you really don't want Musk as CEO shutting down your operations... Either way, I was making a comment on the: 'it's not fair to tax people making obscene amounts because they're actually worth the pay and doing work to match it'. It's basically hard to quantify, it's fair to tax as needed and there is precedent.
        grapist420 5y ago
        Someone needs to fund the judges and regulators and the NSF! I mostly just disagree with “employee run corporations”
UncleMeat 5y ago
What if that decision is anti-social or even illegal?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
HWR_14 5y ago
>> what can you possibly do that justifies making $100 MM a year? > Decide on a course of action for a large company that, over the next few years, makes it $5 billion instead of $4 billion. That's (assuming it was a unique insight) an improvement of $1 billion to the company, or to GDP. That is a high number, even bigger than 100MM (although you specified years vs. year, but whatever). It doesn't follow that it justifies making $100 MM a year.

> what can you possibly do that justifies making $100 MM a year? Decide on a course of action for a large company that, over the next few years, makes it $5 billion instead of $4 billion.

adriancr 5y ago

Could someone else have done the same action / achieve the same thing? If yes, then it's not justified. Large companies do not revolve around a single person (if it's not tesla/spacex, apple in early 2000, early microsoft)

barry-cotter 5y ago
Steve Ballmer quitting as CEO increased Microsoft's market cap by over a billion dollars. If someone can be worth a negative billion I see no reason a different person can't be worth a billion. What you are worth and what you get paid aren't the same, obviously. That depends on outside options, how much beter you are than the next best, replacability, productivity. But while large companies do not revolve around a single person one person leaving can be worth more or less arbitatry amounts. Notch made a billion dollars prety much single handed.
waterhouse 5y ago
Suppose person A has a 50% chance of making the right decision, and person B has a 70% chance. Person B is then worth paying up to $200M more. Or, if you end up making ten decisions like this per year, then even 52% vs 50% would be worth the same amount. When you're managing enormously valuable properties, even small increases in performance can be worth a lot.
- adriancr 5y ago
  How would someone even measure those percentages?, what happens if someone hired is the reverse is true, being 30% right?, is that even observable?, would compensation be negative? Otherwise, without being able to objectively measure this then it's all smoke and mirrors and the persons reach these positions through other means. If that's the case, then taxing an appropriate amount is fair. There's also a precedent with Roosevelt introducing a tax that only really applied to Rockefeller
  - grapist420 5y ago
    I mean you can just think about “would I rather have CEO musk / bezos or CEO drunk BPD girl”. It’s not actually based on percentages
    - adriancr 5y ago
      I did have a musk/jobs/gates/exceptional people exception :). Also depends, if you're an oil company you really don't want Musk as CEO shutting down your operations... Either way, I was making a comment on the: 'it's not fair to tax people making obscene amounts because they're actually worth the pay and doing work to match it'. It's basically hard to quantify, it's fair to tax as needed and there is precedent.
      - grapist420 5y ago
        Someone needs to fund the judges and regulators and the NSF! I mostly just disagree with “employee run corporations”

UncleMeat 5y ago

What if that decision is anti-social or even illegal?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

HWR_14 5y ago

>> what can you possibly do that justifies making $100 MM a year? > Decide on a course of action for a large company that, over the next few years, makes it $5 billion instead of $4 billion. That's (assuming it was a unique insight) an improvement of $1 billion to the company, or to GDP. That is a high number, even bigger than 100MM (although you specified years vs. year, but whatever). It doesn't follow that it justifies making $100 MM a year.