3 ms·
The problem with this is that it presumes there's significant actual skill being exercised at the top level that is unique to the very wealthy who already make
by danaris 3y ago
The problem with this is that it presumes there's significant actual skill being exercised at the top level that is unique to the very wealthy who already make up most executives.
Note, I'm not saying "being a top exec takes no skill"; I'm saying "many people have the skills required, they're just rarely given an opportunity to demonstrate them in the same way." (I'm also saying "many execs do not have any significant skill to bring to the table; all they have is connections and money".)
Essentially, you're repeating a variant of the Just World hypothesis—that people who have skills that are relevant to high-paying jobs must be highly-paid, and people who are highly paid must be skilled enough to warrant it.
Neither of those propositions holds up to actual scrutiny.
- sebzim4500 3y agoI don't think he is disputing your claim that there are many people with the skillset to run Netflix that have never had the opportunity to demonstrate it. The problem is that if they have never had the opportunity to demonstrate it then how do you find them in the first place?
- xyzzy123 3y agoThe skill is "don't take useless payouts" you'd be surprised at how good many people are without practice.
- jusonchan81 3y ago+1 to everything you say. Actual scrutiny will probably yield more optimized results that costs less. Some of the variable factors that will make the actual scrutiny extremely hard are human emotions such as desire, ambitions, ego, time, impact to morale [employee, shareholder, customers]