3 ms·
That “he runs” it is entirely made up as well. It’s a $1.6T company - one person doesn’t run the show. Is he worth more? Is he worth less? Literally all of thi
by scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
That “he runs” it is entirely made up as well. It’s a $1.6T company - one person doesn’t run the show.
Is he worth more? Is he worth less? Literally all of this stuff is not anyone’s business outside of their company and their stakeholders. We can’t truly have a clue what doing a “good job” is with them, or what the compensation should be.
They want to ruthlessly hire-fire talent - it’s all entirely on them as a company. Being outraged about any of it is just as naïve as buying into the idea that their monopolies are built on merit and not on elite credentials and pedigree required to join the club.
For what it’s worth, I think the enormous payouts are there so that these guys’ judgement and decision making is 100% directed only on the company’s value and well-bring. They’re supposed to be in-bribeable.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- empyrrhicist 3y ago> Literally all of this stuff is not anyone’s business outside of their company and their stakeholders. Hard disagree - capitalism is great up to a point, but a functioning market and vibrant tech sector doesn't require that we allow individuals to become this obscenely wealthy. Answering the question of how extreme we want income/wealth inequality to be allowed to become is a valid economic question to be answered societally.