5 ms·

Intel employs 121k people. If you're in charge of managing 121k people - 10x the average salary seems like a minimum. 100x seems in the realm of reasonable. I

Intel employs 121k people. If you're in charge of managing 121k people - 10x the average salary seems like a minimum. 100x seems in the realm of reasonable. If the CEO's salary is distributed to all employees, they would get a ~0.05% raise. If distributed to the shareholders, it would increase profits by ~0.01%. Yet this person's decisions can have much bigger consequences to both employees and shareholders.

deaddodo 4y ago
> If you're in charge of managing 121k people - 10x the average salary seems like a minimum. 100x seems in the realm of reasonable. Except, that’s not a CEO’s job. Even remotely. At best they “manage” a few department heads who each manage a few middle managers who each manage a few direct managers who then manage the workforce. Even then, that’s a misrepresentation however. They are in charge of managing and directing overall company strategy in the interests of the board. The COO (and, sometimes, the CTO; in tech firms) is usually (indirectly) in charge of managing people. I think it’s a valid point that they bring large value to a corporation, but it would be very difficult to quantify that value to be anywhere near 100x any other non-Csuite employee.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  It's more difficult to justify to shareholders paying less, tbh. The risks of a bad CEO are enormous.
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    And yet, CEOs for decades (the 50s-80s) did just fine at a fraction of wealth disparity compared to today [1]. In fact, in just the last three years; the overall disparity has increased 31% despite corporations failing to properly manage the pandemic or their workforces. 1 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2022/05/23/ceo-worker-pay-gap-widens-and-employees-arent-happy-about-it/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2022/05/23/ceo-worker...
    - BeetleB 4y ago
      > And yet, CEOs for decades (the 50s-80s) did just fine at a fraction of wealth disparity compared to today [1]. And yet, SW professionals did just fine for decades when making anywhere from a quarter to a third of today's FAANG salaries (inflation adjusted).
      - bumby 4y ago
        It’s a reasonable point. But I think the distinction is SW wasn’t creating the economic value it does now. Similar to why firmware jobs don’t pay FAANG type salaries, the scale of economic impact isn’t there. (Not to be confused with societal impact). So the question becomes, are CEOs pay commensurate with their added value? Put differently, is the rise in production mainly attributable to the CEO (as wages were largely stagnant prior to 2020, yet CEO wages increased rather dramatically.) Are they adding more value now than they did before and, if so, can we actually measure it?
      - deaddodo 4y ago
        SWE (and many professional/“white color”) salaries have been stagnant for a decade and a half. In fact, the overall average has been on the decline. Try again.
        pc86 4y ago
        You can make your point (even a bad one, like this) without being snide. Do you have a source supporting your comment that SWE comp in 2005 was the same as it is today?
        deaddodo 4y ago
        Considering I’m the only one that has sourced anything in this thread and that the response I was responding to made an easily disproven claim in such a snide/sarcastic manner, it’s hard not to respond in kind. But sure, from a super simple query on any search engine: https://insights.dice.com/2018/02/09/tech-pro-jobs-pay-2018/ https://insights.dice.com/2018/02/09/tech-pro-jobs-pay-2018/ Feel free to gate your query to anytime between 2003ish to now, the results are all the same with a few exceptions (MLE and DeFi jobs, for instance): stagnant or decreasing.
  - bumby 4y ago
    The research is a bit mixed on whether a CEO of a large corporation (S&P 500 size) really matters so I’m not sure the risk statement can be said with conviction.
bumby 4y ago
The thing is, they aren’t actively managing 121k people anymore than the President is commanding 1MM+ troops. Nobody is capable of actually managing that scope. In reality, they are managing a handful who are also managing a handful who are also managing a handful etc. If you disagree, ask yourself if they could intelligently describe a randomly selected employees day-to-day duties. If they can’t, they aren’t really managing them in a meaningful way. I agree they manage the strategic vision of the company. The research on whether they make a real difference in the long term trajectory seems mixed.
cudgy 4y ago
Meh … just like the President … a CEO’s performance is highly correlated to business cycles and stages of a company’s growth. Most of the decisions made are not earth-shattering; they go through the motions and hire the same contractors and make the same decisions that most of their competitor company CEO’s make … after all most of them went to the same business schools and learned the same “cutting edge” business tactics from the same professors.

deaddodo 4y ago

> If you're in charge of managing 121k people - 10x the average salary seems like a minimum. 100x seems in the realm of reasonable. Except, that’s not a CEO’s job. Even remotely. At best they “manage” a few department heads who each manage a few middle managers who each manage a few direct managers who then manage the workforce. Even then, that’s a misrepresentation however. They are in charge of managing and directing overall company strategy in the interests of the board. The COO (and, sometimes, the CTO; in tech firms) is usually (indirectly) in charge of managing people. I think it’s a valid point that they bring large value to a corporation, but it would be very difficult to quantify that value to be anywhere near 100x any other non-Csuite employee.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
It's more difficult to justify to shareholders paying less, tbh. The risks of a bad CEO are enormous.
- deaddodo 4y ago
  And yet, CEOs for decades (the 50s-80s) did just fine at a fraction of wealth disparity compared to today [1]. In fact, in just the last three years; the overall disparity has increased 31% despite corporations failing to properly manage the pandemic or their workforces. 1 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2022/05/23/ceo-worker-pay-gap-widens-and-employees-arent-happy-about-it/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2022/05/23/ceo-worker...
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    > And yet, CEOs for decades (the 50s-80s) did just fine at a fraction of wealth disparity compared to today [1]. And yet, SW professionals did just fine for decades when making anywhere from a quarter to a third of today's FAANG salaries (inflation adjusted).
    - bumby 4y ago
      It’s a reasonable point. But I think the distinction is SW wasn’t creating the economic value it does now. Similar to why firmware jobs don’t pay FAANG type salaries, the scale of economic impact isn’t there. (Not to be confused with societal impact). So the question becomes, are CEOs pay commensurate with their added value? Put differently, is the rise in production mainly attributable to the CEO (as wages were largely stagnant prior to 2020, yet CEO wages increased rather dramatically.) Are they adding more value now than they did before and, if so, can we actually measure it?
    - deaddodo 4y ago
      SWE (and many professional/“white color”) salaries have been stagnant for a decade and a half. In fact, the overall average has been on the decline. Try again.
      - pc86 4y ago
        You can make your point (even a bad one, like this) without being snide. Do you have a source supporting your comment that SWE comp in 2005 was the same as it is today?
        deaddodo 4y ago
        Considering I’m the only one that has sourced anything in this thread and that the response I was responding to made an easily disproven claim in such a snide/sarcastic manner, it’s hard not to respond in kind. But sure, from a super simple query on any search engine: https://insights.dice.com/2018/02/09/tech-pro-jobs-pay-2018/ https://insights.dice.com/2018/02/09/tech-pro-jobs-pay-2018/ Feel free to gate your query to anytime between 2003ish to now, the results are all the same with a few exceptions (MLE and DeFi jobs, for instance): stagnant or decreasing.
- bumby 4y ago
  The research is a bit mixed on whether a CEO of a large corporation (S&P 500 size) really matters so I’m not sure the risk statement can be said with conviction.

bumby 4y ago

The thing is, they aren’t actively managing 121k people anymore than the President is commanding 1MM+ troops. Nobody is capable of actually managing that scope. In reality, they are managing a handful who are also managing a handful who are also managing a handful etc. If you disagree, ask yourself if they could intelligently describe a randomly selected employees day-to-day duties. If they can’t, they aren’t really managing them in a meaningful way. I agree they manage the strategic vision of the company. The research on whether they make a real difference in the long term trajectory seems mixed.

cudgy 4y ago

Meh … just like the President … a CEO’s performance is highly correlated to business cycles and stages of a company’s growth. Most of the decisions made are not earth-shattering; they go through the motions and hire the same contractors and make the same decisions that most of their competitor company CEO’s make … after all most of them went to the same business schools and learned the same “cutting edge” business tactics from the same professors.