4 ms·
I don't buy it. The decision of who a company hires at what level of compensation rests nearly entirely in a class of individuals consisting of those very same
by yellowapple 4y ago
I don't buy it. The decision of who a company hires at what level of compensation rests nearly entirely in a class of individuals consisting of those very same people being hired at some level of compensation. Expecting the executive class to screen and compensate itself based on actual merit rather than mutual favors is akin to expecting congresspersons to vote on their own raises, or expecting cops to investigate themselves for corruption/wrongdoing, or otherwise expecting a committee of wolves to make a decision on tonight's dinner that's in the best interest of sheep.
If it was about competence, then the competent executives would've pushed out the incompetent ones in favor of competent replacements sourced from the general public. Instead, they do the precise opposite, favoring incompetent incumbents and fighting tooth and nail against competent replacements sourced from the general public. That fight is in vain: like any fight between the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, the latter has the actual skill and knowledge to win... only for their descendants to inherit their wealth and become the new aristocracy, against which a new bourgeoisie struggles - and rinse and repeat.
Put simply: it's the same Old Money v. New Money bullshit we've seen for as long as the concept of wealth has existed.
- unity1001 4y ago> That fight is in vain: like any fight between the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, the latter has the actual skill and knowledge to win... Only because the former keeps believing the justifications and rules dished out against them by the latter. Its not different than the religion in middle ages and how the aristocrats and priesthood dished out justifications and rules to maintain the order. Otherwise the former has the power to change everything in the democratic apparatus.