3 ms·

> Or imagine this... they (athletes and CEOs) are ALL grossly overpaid. WOAH!! Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. > How out of touch with rea

> Or imagine this... they (athletes and CEOs) are ALL grossly overpaid. WOAH!! Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. > How out of touch with reality are you, if you think that's acceptable for any human to make that kind of money when majority of the world can hardly afford food. Livable conditions for all humans have nothing to do with how to compensate top of the of the top people in their profession. By mixing those 2, you're only hurting your case.

bumby 4y ago
>Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. Small nit pick, but it's a function of perceived economic value, which I think is where some of the outrage comes from. For example, someone may provide a lot of unperceived economic value and not be paid accordingly or they may provide a high level of societal value, but relatively low economic value and not be paid well.
Krasnol 4y ago
> Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. I seriously doubt those skills which are supposed to define scarcity at this point. There is too much management to require a seriously special person on that chair. I'm sure you could have someone from mid-management on that chair and it still wouldn't run worse. It would probably even run better. So what is the value there? It's almost like with a piece of art. Only because people are ready to pay a price for it, it's valued at that price. On the other hand you have thousands of slaves working for the same company, generating value you can actually touch and they earn unbelievably less that the artistic head of this monster. So sure...nice try but you have to be really far away from the bottom to actually believe it.
- justapassenger 4y ago
  > I seriously doubt those skills which are supposed to define scarcity at this point. There is too much management to require a seriously special person on that chair. I'm sure you could have someone from mid-management on that chair and it still wouldn't run worse. It would probably even run better. Did you ever try to manage small org vs big org vs huge company? It's very naive to think that managing dozens of people requires same skills as managing some of the biggest companies in the world.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    Of course I did. I'm Bill Gates. Did you? I worked for small and huge companies though and I could see that it requires far less work to manage a huge one than to manage a small one. I wouldn't even call it "work" if managing the small one is work. It's more like pointing your finger.
    - justapassenger 4y ago
      I’ve also stood next to the brain surgeon once and I could see that his work was easy.
      - Krasnol 4y ago
        Oh so we're comparing paper pushers to brain surgeons now? Guess I've found one eh?
        justapassenger 4y ago
        You legitimately think you don’t need comparable level of education, work and skill between brain surgeon and leader of big, successful organization? I assume you never actually lead anyy bigger team for significant amount of time. I’m not a manager, but I’ve lead teams of around 50 people as an IC. It’s tough job that requires very specific skill set to be successful.
        Krasnol 4y ago
        Yes I legitimately think that you don't need that at the top of a huge company and I talk from my first hand experience I got from an international F500 company with hundreds of thousand paper pushers and now working in the health sector. The CEO of the former company was a senile wreck. He "managed" the company for quite a few years when I was there. His replacement does almost no work at all. Still on it. I would love to get into detail there but I might doxx myself. As I wrote above: some mid-management person would probably be much better suited for the position. They are theoretically still in the pool but not realistically so the "scarcity" theory is faked since it's a fake group of people who are being considered. They're most of the times not even considered for their skill set. They've been just sucking up to their predecessor while stabbing everybody else in their way in the back. How this is considered a valuable skill for managing any company (besides in the mafia probably) is beyond me. Maybe you could explain it to me. On the other hand, you can't replace a brain surgeon with a night nurse. You can't even take a random doctor to do the job and the brain surgeons reputation is directly connected to the actual work he/she does with their own hands. When he gets older, his eyes weaker, his hands shaky, he won't be able to do the job anymore.
- lazide 4y ago
  If folks who had to pay them believed that, then they wouldn't pay them that (in my experience). As to if you think the folks who pay them are clueless to do so, do you know any of them personally?
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    Just like the folks here who cheer this madness, those folks who pay them believe in the hype for the same stupid reasons OP outlined above and to justify their own wages.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Those folks are elected by the shareholders though. So the people who are paying, are (indirectly) paying out of their own pockets. If someone can't pay out of their own pockets the amount they think someone is worth for them to work for them (or appoint someone to do it for them), then... what's the alternative?
      - Krasnol 4y ago
        By the biggest shareholders which are in turn the same kind of people. And they surely not pay it out of THEIR OWN pockets...they pay it out of pockets of their customers and so on goes the responsibility train... Also what's the "choice" there? Seriously, even calling that "choice" is ridiculous. The alternative is to force those bloodsuckers to pay wages people can life from. They can keep the rest. Nobody would give a damn because at some point they'd have to rise prices to reflect even in the slightest ways the actual worth of the work of their weakest slaves which carry the whole construct. Maybe and only maybe then they'd cut the wages higher above where all those useless paper pushers sit with their fancy names or they'd lose money because people would stop buying their shit. Quite easy eh? And everybody knows about that solution. It's just not happening because everybody who could enforce it, is just as greedy as the assholes on top and their "shareholders".
        lazide 4y ago

bumby 4y ago

>Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. Small nit pick, but it's a function of perceived economic value, which I think is where some of the outrage comes from. For example, someone may provide a lot of unperceived economic value and not be paid accordingly or they may provide a high level of societal value, but relatively low economic value and not be paid well.

Krasnol 4y ago

> Pay is a function of scarcity and value they bring. I seriously doubt those skills which are supposed to define scarcity at this point. There is too much management to require a seriously special person on that chair. I'm sure you could have someone from mid-management on that chair and it still wouldn't run worse. It would probably even run better. So what is the value there? It's almost like with a piece of art. Only because people are ready to pay a price for it, it's valued at that price. On the other hand you have thousands of slaves working for the same company, generating value you can actually touch and they earn unbelievably less that the artistic head of this monster. So sure...nice try but you have to be really far away from the bottom to actually believe it.

justapassenger 4y ago
> I seriously doubt those skills which are supposed to define scarcity at this point. There is too much management to require a seriously special person on that chair. I'm sure you could have someone from mid-management on that chair and it still wouldn't run worse. It would probably even run better. Did you ever try to manage small org vs big org vs huge company? It's very naive to think that managing dozens of people requires same skills as managing some of the biggest companies in the world.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  Of course I did. I'm Bill Gates. Did you? I worked for small and huge companies though and I could see that it requires far less work to manage a huge one than to manage a small one. I wouldn't even call it "work" if managing the small one is work. It's more like pointing your finger.
  - justapassenger 4y ago
    I’ve also stood next to the brain surgeon once and I could see that his work was easy.
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      Oh so we're comparing paper pushers to brain surgeons now? Guess I've found one eh?
      - justapassenger 4y ago
        You legitimately think you don’t need comparable level of education, work and skill between brain surgeon and leader of big, successful organization? I assume you never actually lead anyy bigger team for significant amount of time. I’m not a manager, but I’ve lead teams of around 50 people as an IC. It’s tough job that requires very specific skill set to be successful.
        Krasnol 4y ago
        Yes I legitimately think that you don't need that at the top of a huge company and I talk from my first hand experience I got from an international F500 company with hundreds of thousand paper pushers and now working in the health sector. The CEO of the former company was a senile wreck. He "managed" the company for quite a few years when I was there. His replacement does almost no work at all. Still on it. I would love to get into detail there but I might doxx myself. As I wrote above: some mid-management person would probably be much better suited for the position. They are theoretically still in the pool but not realistically so the "scarcity" theory is faked since it's a fake group of people who are being considered. They're most of the times not even considered for their skill set. They've been just sucking up to their predecessor while stabbing everybody else in their way in the back. How this is considered a valuable skill for managing any company (besides in the mafia probably) is beyond me. Maybe you could explain it to me. On the other hand, you can't replace a brain surgeon with a night nurse. You can't even take a random doctor to do the job and the brain surgeons reputation is directly connected to the actual work he/she does with their own hands. When he gets older, his eyes weaker, his hands shaky, he won't be able to do the job anymore.
lazide 4y ago
If folks who had to pay them believed that, then they wouldn't pay them that (in my experience). As to if you think the folks who pay them are clueless to do so, do you know any of them personally?
- Krasnol 4y ago
  Just like the folks here who cheer this madness, those folks who pay them believe in the hype for the same stupid reasons OP outlined above and to justify their own wages.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Those folks are elected by the shareholders though. So the people who are paying, are (indirectly) paying out of their own pockets. If someone can't pay out of their own pockets the amount they think someone is worth for them to work for them (or appoint someone to do it for them), then... what's the alternative?
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      By the biggest shareholders which are in turn the same kind of people. And they surely not pay it out of THEIR OWN pockets...they pay it out of pockets of their customers and so on goes the responsibility train... Also what's the "choice" there? Seriously, even calling that "choice" is ridiculous. The alternative is to force those bloodsuckers to pay wages people can life from. They can keep the rest. Nobody would give a damn because at some point they'd have to rise prices to reflect even in the slightest ways the actual worth of the work of their weakest slaves which carry the whole construct. Maybe and only maybe then they'd cut the wages higher above where all those useless paper pushers sit with their fancy names or they'd lose money because people would stop buying their shit. Quite easy eh? And everybody knows about that solution. It's just not happening because everybody who could enforce it, is just as greedy as the assholes on top and their "shareholders".
      - lazide 4y ago