3 ms·
I am in fact looking at it from the company's point of view. Anybody who doesn't want the job enough to do it for 10 million but would do it for 100 million is
by jbooth 15y ago
I am in fact looking at it from the company's point of view.
Anybody who doesn't want the job enough to do it for 10 million but would do it for 100 million is going to SUCK at the job. Period.
- CWuestefeld 15y agoAnybody who doesn't want the job enough to do it for 10 million but would do it for 100 million is going to SUCK at the job I think you're assuming to much in this statement. It's not clear that they would not be willing to do the job for $10 million. But there are 100 different companies who would be willing to pay them that much, and they've got to make a decision somehow. Other things being equal, they'll go with the one that offers the most. This is exactly what pricing does in a market. It allows the participants to signal the importance of a product to them. That $100million bidder is signalling that it's more important to him to get mister AAA CEO. Is there some reason that we should ignore that bidder's signal?
- jbooth 15y agoYou're arguing that the highest paid people in the world operate at the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Was Steve Jobs a $1/year CEO? How about Sergey Brin? Good leaders typically have different motivations than "I could afford to upgrade my yacht from 10 million to 25 million". I understand that that complicates your economic model, but guess what, it's people we're talking about here.
- rhizome 15y agoAnd the job isn't so hard that they couldn't find a passel of candidates at $10MM.