8 ms·

On the surface, it's of course "fair" that compensation be tied to performance. The problem is that we're talking about an ASTRONOMICAL sum of money when it co

On the surface, it's of course "fair" that compensation be tied to performance. The problem is that we're talking about an ASTRONOMICAL sum of money when it comes to people like Tim Cook. After the 50% pay cut, he's still making $49 million. Beyond a certain level of wealth, the numerical value of one's compensation becomes effectively meaningless. It's just theater for him to say he's taking a "pay cut".

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Beyond a certain level of wealth, the numerical value of one's compensation becomes effectively meaningless. Depends on your lifestyle inflation. Even for the high earners in the US, 49 million per year is FIRE money, but if you're used to the life of an oil sheikh with luxury clothing, jewelry, art, exotic private parties, dozens of rare supercars, private jets and yachts, McMansions/penthouses in London, Paris, Geneva, NY, Tokyo, etc., some private island where it's nice and warm, and also want to leave a similar lifestyle for your kids and their kids and their kids' kids, then 49 million per year is basically poverty money.
- athorax 4y ago
  I'll make sure to pour one out for our oil sheikhs tonight
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  Of wealth, yes, of income, maybe a level below sheiks but still can afford all of this. He is still worth like 1.7 billion USD.
- lp0_on_fire 4y ago
  Perhaps with the 49 million per year they can purchase the world's smallest violin.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  check out the European Nobility for about 500 years, before the Napoleonic-era for conspicuous consumption. (some of the modern sports-moguls lack taste, from my chair). Of course, that EU Feudal system was powered by serf labor and oversea Imperialism.. think of serfdom as similar to an AWS job with a difficult boss, but with the serfs had more job security.
- buffington 4y ago
  > 49 million per year is basically poverty money. You'd think a quote like this, pulled out of context, would change its meaning once seen in context. It doesn't. There's a vast difference between not being able to afford an absurd lifestyle of consumption and extravagance and being able to eat. Someone's who's salary is cut from $100M a year to $49M a year, no matter how insane their spending was, isn't going to suffer. If it's not clear: someone having to choose to buy a Ferrari instead of a Bugatti because of a pay cut is not the same as someone having to choose between shelter or food because of a pay cut.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  I'm sorry. Using a 3% withdrawal rate, $49m let's you safely live off $1.47m per year, far above what "high earners" are even earning. And that's just a flat $49m. You are saying $49m per year. That's a fucking ludicrous amount of money. Even if your hobby is dropping Bugattis off cliffs you won't exhaust that much income.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>Beyond a certain level of wealth, the numerical value of one's compensation becomes effectively meaningless. Depends on your lifestyle inflation. Even for the high earners in the US, 49 million per year is FIRE money, but if you're used to the life of an oil sheikh with luxury clothing, jewelry, art, exotic private parties, dozens of rare supercars, private jets and yachts, McMansions/penthouses in London, Paris, Geneva, NY, Tokyo, etc., some private island where it's nice and warm, and also want to leave a similar lifestyle for your kids and their kids and their kids' kids, then 49 million per year is basically poverty money.

athorax 4y ago
I'll make sure to pour one out for our oil sheikhs tonight
KptMarchewa 4y ago
Of wealth, yes, of income, maybe a level below sheiks but still can afford all of this. He is still worth like 1.7 billion USD.
lp0_on_fire 4y ago
Perhaps with the 49 million per year they can purchase the world's smallest violin.
mistrial9 4y ago
check out the European Nobility for about 500 years, before the Napoleonic-era for conspicuous consumption. (some of the modern sports-moguls lack taste, from my chair). Of course, that EU Feudal system was powered by serf labor and oversea Imperialism.. think of serfdom as similar to an AWS job with a difficult boss, but with the serfs had more job security.
buffington 4y ago
> 49 million per year is basically poverty money. You'd think a quote like this, pulled out of context, would change its meaning once seen in context. It doesn't. There's a vast difference between not being able to afford an absurd lifestyle of consumption and extravagance and being able to eat. Someone's who's salary is cut from $100M a year to $49M a year, no matter how insane their spending was, isn't going to suffer. If it's not clear: someone having to choose to buy a Ferrari instead of a Bugatti because of a pay cut is not the same as someone having to choose between shelter or food because of a pay cut.
UncleMeat 4y ago
I'm sorry. Using a 3% withdrawal rate, $49m let's you safely live off $1.47m per year, far above what "high earners" are even earning. And that's just a flat $49m. You are saying $49m per year. That's a fucking ludicrous amount of money. Even if your hobby is dropping Bugattis off cliffs you won't exhaust that much income.