3 ms·
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
by 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 agoHow 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoSomeone needs to fund the judges and regulators and the NSF! I mostly just disagree with “employee run corporations”