7 ms·
Executive compensation in America never made any sense to me.
by carlycue 3y ago
Executive compensation in America never made any sense to me.
- Timon3 3y agoThe conclusion is sadly pretty simple: you don't rise based on ability or creativity, but based on your ability to take from those that try to.
- geodel 3y agoYeah, similarly IT workers compensation in America never made any sense to me. All over the world its 1/3rd or less than here in US.
- ceejayoz 3y agoMy salary is decent, but our family paid $48k out-of-pocket for medical care last year, and our kids enter college soon; some colleges in the US are over $60k/year now. In Europe, my salary would be lower... but so would my medical and college costs.
- niij 3y agoSorry to hear that. How does a $48k bill happen with insurance after the No Surprises act?
- ceejayoz 3y ago$2400/month premiums ($2800 this year), $4k in copays (capped), uncovered compounded medications, an out-of-network provider because the in-network ones have a year's wait, dental/braces/vision, etc. (Plus mileage/parking incurred with a medically complex family.)
- runeb 3y agoAnd rent -- easily 2-4x in HCOL areas of US compared to Europe
- badpun 3y agoWhere is it 4x ? Most expensive area in US (Manhattan) is maybe 2x as expensive as most expensive area in Europe (Central-ish London).
- alephnerd 3y agoIf your base of comparison is Berlin, then Tier 1 metros in the US can come out to 3-4x as expensive, but Germany also has pretty bad wage stagnation so ymmv
- badpun 3y agoBerlin is not a Tier 1 city in Europe, at least not when it comes to rental costs.
- alephnerd 3y agoI agree (Munich, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and Cologne-Bonn take the cake in DE economically while Berlin is a relative newcomer), but when Americans talk about Europe, the image that comes to mind is going to either be Berlin or maybe Paris (yes Ireland+UK are Europe as well, but they aren't exactly treated as European in the American zeitgeist). That said, Berlin is definetly much cheaper than other cities due to the Cold War. It's basically Western+Central Europe's Austin.
- WoodenChair 3y agoTrue, but did you notice the US tends to have more successful IT companies? Maybe it’s worth paying more to attract the world’s best workers.
- geodel 3y agoBut just in these threads I read that talent and ability is not valued in America.
- typon 3y agoI know this is supposed to be a "self-awareness jab" at HN commenters, but you should really take a look at the stock market. 7 of the top 10 companies by market value are American tech companies. If anything, American IT workers are severely underpaid compared to the profits these companies are raking in.
- geodel 3y agoI think you mean well. Though this comment does remind me of situation during Silicon Valley Bank collapse. Many startup founders were shocked to discover how large part of America hate these hardworking entrepreneurs for no fault of theirs.
- badpun 3y agoThese companies are raking record profit because they've managed to place themselves as de facto monopolies in their respective areas. The software world is a winner-take-all in nature, where the last man standing becomes a super profitable monopoly (SV prefers the term "the moat" instead of monopoly). It has little to do with the workers of these companies and everything with the lack of regulation of the tech sector.
- typon 3y agoThat very well may be true, but I would rather the workers still get paid concomitant to the profits the corporation is raking in rather than even more wealth being accumulated by the capital class running these corporations.
- jeremyjh 3y agoBut that means the work being done at those companies is more valuable than the work being done elsewhere, and so it makes sense that those companies would pay more (because marginally better employees will add even more value than they cost, due to the org's over-size leverage of that work). That in turn raises salaries for all workers in the same market.
- FredPret 3y agoThe big question is why do other societies (I'm not American) not value engineering. And when I say "value", I mean "with money". Some professions push society forward and create long-term wealth. In my mind these are professions where you make decisions with skin in the game, persuade others to do things a better way, and all of STEM. Leadership, sales, engineering, science. Other professions exist to describe what these prime movers do, or to maintain their work, or to support the people doing it. This is also vital and every society needs this too, but it's just not as important. So, if in the USA they pay engineers 3x better than in other countries, the question is: what the hell is the rest of the world thinking?
- imiric 3y agoSTEM professions are important, but I disagree that they're not valued enough. If anything, the US is overvaluing them compared to the rest of the world. Education and health professionals are much more valuable to society, and it's criminal how little they're paid in general. Sure, they ultimately depend on STEM fields, but without them our societies would literally collapse. The "prime movers" as you put it depend much more on health and education professions than the other way around.
- FredPret 3y agoWe only need teachers because they generate STEM grads. No science would mean 90% of the value in education is gone. There's obviously value in learning history and English, but it's nothing transformative. Until recently, the medical profession was literally leeching people until STEM stepped in with germ theory etc. The life expectancy value of going to the doctor was negative! The US pays salespeople, leaders, entrepreneurs, and engineers a ton of money. And it shows in the results.
- imiric 3y ago> We only need teachers because they generate STEM grads. Only? No professions would exist without teachers. Education is fundamental to our society, and has been for millenia. There's nothing more transformative than a good education. > No science would mean 90% of the value in education is gone. Again, I'm not saying that science is not important. It plays a critical role in driving other fields forward. But I'd argue that an average teacher and health care worker are more valuable to society than an average IT professional, while the discrepancy in pay between them is abysmal. We only care about health care workers in times of crisis, but then quickly forget about them when it's not trendy to call them "heroes" anymore. > Until recently, the medical profession was literally leeching people until STEM stepped in with germ theory etc. I'm not talking about scientific breakthroughs that push other fields forward. Those obviously deserve the merit and recognition they have received. I'm talking about the value of the average working class professional in these fields, and their relative salaries. > The US pays salespeople, leaders, entrepreneurs, and engineers a ton of money. And it shows in the results. What results? How is a software "engineer" working for an adtech or social media giant to build spyware valuable to society exactly? Or yet another startup peddling their bullshit product designed to lure in investors and make their shareholders rich? Or the sleazy sales people making all those deals happen? You're telling me that this is somehow more valuable than health workers literally saving people's lives, or teachers building future professionals? One group lives in luxury, while the other can barely make ends meet working a much more stressful and laborious job. This shows in the results, alright. Thinking that somehow our profession is more important is indicative of the tech bubble we're in. But I'm not surprised to see such mentality on this forum.
- fullshark 3y agoThe decisions made at the executive level regarding Netflix will have a much greater impact on each shareholder's value than the decisions made regarding Squid Game's creative direction. I mean it's not even a question. Now could you find someone to do as good a job as an executive for less? Maybe but when you have a 180 billion dollar company why are you going cheap here to save a few bucks? The wrong executive can be utterly disastrous, and a lot of what I think stockholders are paying for is risk reduction.
- jonny_eh 3y ago> Now could you find someone to do as good a job as an executive for less? Yes, 100% absolutely, yes.
- jusonchan81 3y agoI’d disagree that you can find them for less. If they are better they would probably demand and get equal or more.
- bosie 3y agoNot sure about that logic. If true, you could never find anything better for less. And that is just plain wrong.
- coderintherye 3y agoYou're just wrong: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ceo-pay-and-performance-dont-match-up-1526299200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/ceo-pay-and-performance-dont-ma...
- jusonchan81 3y agoI am not saying I am right, but my theory is: If you are able to deliver a better result than "Person X" who is paid more than you, and if you get a chance to deliver that result, won't you demand to be paid more than the "Person X"? And for the company who is paying, who already seems to agree to pay that much for "Person X"'s result - would likely to be happy to pay you the same or more since you are delivering more Where am I wrong? Isn't this just capitalism? Help me understand :) If you voluntarily say I need only half the pay of "Person X" aren't you basically being charitable or just sacrificing what you could potentially get? I am not saying that doing this is wrong (probably morally right) but this is probably rare.
- pydry 3y agoIt's pretty simple. They decide what to pay each other and they're usually all in agreement that theyre all incredibly valuable.
- throw_m239339 3y ago"it's to retain talents"... except most of these people sit on the board of each other's companies and vote each others outrageous compensations... retaining talents my ass...