4 ms·

You don't set the compensation for a job bearing in mind the wealth of the person who is filling that position. That's such an odd perspective. For example, al

You don't set the compensation for a job bearing in mind the wealth of the person who is filling that position. That's such an odd perspective. For example, all other things being equal, would you pay someone working for you less because you found out they were the beneficiary of a large inheritance? I hope not; I hope you would keep paying them equitably according to their performance relative to market, I think?

kennywinker 5y ago
You’re talking to someone who believes in a maximum income, so yes generational wealth effects your pay expectations. Both up and down: up because you have a higher standard of living, and down because you can choose jobs that don’t pay your “market value” because you like the work. Ask anyone in the non-profit or arts sectors - pay is low and generational wealth is widespread. If you have millions or billions in the bank, you’re working for reasons other than wealth accumulation. You should be paid a living wage (like everyone) and derive your status and satisfaction from things besides a big number getting slightly bigger. Obviously we live in a world where markets impact how much you have to pay to retain someone beyond that livable wage threshold - but both tim cook and the “ceo of apple” job are not exactly fungible commodities, so it’s not a healthy balanced market that we should trust to invisibly-hand itself a correct valuation.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Need and should are largely irrelevant. The question is does he want it and demand it, and the answer is yes. Some people like you mention don't care about pay, don't demand it, and don't get it, others do care. It seems like you are mainly making a point about how Tim Cook should think and feel about his job, when he clearly has a different opinion. As you say, Tim Cook is not fungible and wants to get what he is worth.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    My point is not about what tim cook should think, it’s about how i believe people in his position do think. Their pay keeps going up because profits are high, monopolization is high, and so when they ask boards give. But i don’t believe they’re doing that job for the pay. Or, not primarily for the pay, they probably wouldn’t do it for free. So, it’s being put to a vote and they could deny it, and if they do the question is will he walk? That fact that he has 2bil in the bank and is still doing the work he’s doing suggests to me that he might not. CEO of apple isn’t a fungible job. I don’t believe tim cook wants to be CEO of any other company. If he wanted to leave no dollar amount could keep him, similarly, i’m not sure a pay cut would send him packing.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      >But i don’t believe they’re doing that job for the pay. Or, not primarily for the pay, they probably wouldn’t do it for free. Perhaps I misinterpreted you post. If that is your position, than I totally agree. >So, it’s being put to a vote and they could deny it, and if they do the question is will he walk? I think that all depends on the alternative proposal. I think they most likely outcome if it passes is that Tim Cook will be offered more money but with a longer lockup schedule. If they came back and said "hey richie, you have enough in the bank and should work for the average salary", I think it is likely he would walk, even if he is not primarily doing it for the money.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  You have the arrow of causation pointing the wrong way. The arts sector has a higher proportion of people with wealth because it doesn't pay very much, not the other way around. i.e. they are the only people with the required educational background who can afford to take those jobs. It's not like the arts organizations are trying to figure out who to employ and say "hmm, if we decide to have low pay, we can recruit a bunch of trust-funders and spouses of investment bankers". By and large, it doesn't matter what your personal situation is when the market sets pay for a position. The comp package for a staff software engineer in SV is X, and it's not going to be X * 0.5 because the employee has a trust fund or X * 2 because the employee has seventeen children, five of which have expensive medical conditions. The whole reason that boards have compensation committees is to figure out what the "right" level of executive pay is. It doesn't matter who is in that seat. If Apple decides to pay Tim Cook only $1, then what kind of a signal are they sending to the people who might replace him? Instead the board is going to set reasonable, market pay and if Tim Cook wants to give it all away through philanthropy, or even waive the entire package (i.e. taking all but $1), then that's up to him.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    > The arts sector has a higher proportion of people with wealth because it doesn't pay very much, not the other way around Yes this is obviously true. If the pay is low and you’re poor you’ll go elsewhere if you can. But my point is those rich people stay in that field even tho the pay is low, because they like the work. I suspect most CEOs would stay in their job if you cut all CEO pay by 1/10th, not that doing that would make their job low paid. As long as you did it across the board, instead of just at one company. My evidence for this? In 1985 ceo pay was 30x the average worker. In 2015 it was 271x. That’s a 9x increase. And yet in the entire period from 1985 to 2015 there were plenty of people seeking the job of CEOs. You’re telling yourself a free market capitalism just-so-story. This is the way it is, therefor this is the way it must be. But there are plenty of non-free-market forces that push ceo salaries higher. Monopolization is a big one. Tax code is another one (stock grants as pay pushed rates up), etc.
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

kennywinker 5y ago

You’re talking to someone who believes in a maximum income, so yes generational wealth effects your pay expectations. Both up and down: up because you have a higher standard of living, and down because you can choose jobs that don’t pay your “market value” because you like the work. Ask anyone in the non-profit or arts sectors - pay is low and generational wealth is widespread. If you have millions or billions in the bank, you’re working for reasons other than wealth accumulation. You should be paid a living wage (like everyone) and derive your status and satisfaction from things besides a big number getting slightly bigger. Obviously we live in a world where markets impact how much you have to pay to retain someone beyond that livable wage threshold - but both tim cook and the “ceo of apple” job are not exactly fungible commodities, so it’s not a healthy balanced market that we should trust to invisibly-hand itself a correct valuation.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
Need and should are largely irrelevant. The question is does he want it and demand it, and the answer is yes. Some people like you mention don't care about pay, don't demand it, and don't get it, others do care. It seems like you are mainly making a point about how Tim Cook should think and feel about his job, when he clearly has a different opinion. As you say, Tim Cook is not fungible and wants to get what he is worth.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  My point is not about what tim cook should think, it’s about how i believe people in his position do think. Their pay keeps going up because profits are high, monopolization is high, and so when they ask boards give. But i don’t believe they’re doing that job for the pay. Or, not primarily for the pay, they probably wouldn’t do it for free. So, it’s being put to a vote and they could deny it, and if they do the question is will he walk? That fact that he has 2bil in the bank and is still doing the work he’s doing suggests to me that he might not. CEO of apple isn’t a fungible job. I don’t believe tim cook wants to be CEO of any other company. If he wanted to leave no dollar amount could keep him, similarly, i’m not sure a pay cut would send him packing.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >But i don’t believe they’re doing that job for the pay. Or, not primarily for the pay, they probably wouldn’t do it for free. Perhaps I misinterpreted you post. If that is your position, than I totally agree. >So, it’s being put to a vote and they could deny it, and if they do the question is will he walk? I think that all depends on the alternative proposal. I think they most likely outcome if it passes is that Tim Cook will be offered more money but with a longer lockup schedule. If they came back and said "hey richie, you have enough in the bank and should work for the average salary", I think it is likely he would walk, even if he is not primarily doing it for the money.
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
You have the arrow of causation pointing the wrong way. The arts sector has a higher proportion of people with wealth because it doesn't pay very much, not the other way around. i.e. they are the only people with the required educational background who can afford to take those jobs. It's not like the arts organizations are trying to figure out who to employ and say "hmm, if we decide to have low pay, we can recruit a bunch of trust-funders and spouses of investment bankers". By and large, it doesn't matter what your personal situation is when the market sets pay for a position. The comp package for a staff software engineer in SV is X, and it's not going to be X * 0.5 because the employee has a trust fund or X * 2 because the employee has seventeen children, five of which have expensive medical conditions. The whole reason that boards have compensation committees is to figure out what the "right" level of executive pay is. It doesn't matter who is in that seat. If Apple decides to pay Tim Cook only $1, then what kind of a signal are they sending to the people who might replace him? Instead the board is going to set reasonable, market pay and if Tim Cook wants to give it all away through philanthropy, or even waive the entire package (i.e. taking all but $1), then that's up to him.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  > The arts sector has a higher proportion of people with wealth because it doesn't pay very much, not the other way around Yes this is obviously true. If the pay is low and you’re poor you’ll go elsewhere if you can. But my point is those rich people stay in that field even tho the pay is low, because they like the work. I suspect most CEOs would stay in their job if you cut all CEO pay by 1/10th, not that doing that would make their job low paid. As long as you did it across the board, instead of just at one company. My evidence for this? In 1985 ceo pay was 30x the average worker. In 2015 it was 271x. That’s a 9x increase. And yet in the entire period from 1985 to 2015 there were plenty of people seeking the job of CEOs. You’re telling yourself a free market capitalism just-so-story. This is the way it is, therefor this is the way it must be. But there are plenty of non-free-market forces that push ceo salaries higher. Monopolization is a big one. Tax code is another one (stock grants as pay pushed rates up), etc.
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago