2 ms·

Flipped on it's head - 2 thoughts: 1) You cite cost of replacement - yet these companies are unable to replace their C-Suite with anyone costing less. Therefor

by Alupis 3y ago

Flipped on it's head - 2 thoughts: 1) You cite cost of replacement - yet these companies are unable to replace their C-Suite with anyone costing less. Therefore, they can command the compensation levels they do (not to mention compensation != in pocket pay). 2) UAW employees are indeed readily replicable with little or no training on average. Offshoring is very realistic, and there is no shortage of high-school educated folks willing to work in a factory/plant for current levels of pay. Inflation is putting a squeeze on everyone, and it just so happens your average worker is feeling it the most. It's no coincidence all these labor issues and strikes are happening right now.

Aeolun 3y ago
> these companies are unable to replace their C-Suite with anyone costing less They can replace their C-suite with me. The fact they don’t want to because I’m not some rich, well-connected, historical CEO does not mean they don’t have the option. I’d do the job for just the basic pay package.
- Alupis 3y ago
  Have you considered that you are perhaps not a very good big-org leader, and perhaps that is why they have not hired you? Simply stating they can hire you and they don't because you're not already well-connected clearly demonstrates you haven't an idea what these people actually do.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    And you are qualified to judge right? My point is that there are a lot of people that would make perfectly fine CEO’s skipped over because they’re not already a CEO/born into connections. The strongest signal people use for determining whether they would be any good is whether they’re already one. Which is how people that torpedo a company get re-hired anyway. Unlike for example, engineers, where we assume they can’t program their way out of a pack of butter even when they come in as a principal.
dfiohnio 3y ago
[dead]
ajross 3y ago
Yes, exactly. You can flip the argument on its head and it works symmetrically. So why was it OK for executives to get huge salary increases over the last decade but not workers, since it's based on the same moral ("fairness") calculus? It's not. The moral ground has been ceded. Now it's just about "I got mine".

by Alupis 3y ago

Aeolun 3y ago

> these companies are unable to replace their C-Suite with anyone costing less They can replace their C-suite with me. The fact they don’t want to because I’m not some rich, well-connected, historical CEO does not mean they don’t have the option. I’d do the job for just the basic pay package.

Alupis 3y ago
Have you considered that you are perhaps not a very good big-org leader, and perhaps that is why they have not hired you? Simply stating they can hire you and they don't because you're not already well-connected clearly demonstrates you haven't an idea what these people actually do.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  And you are qualified to judge right? My point is that there are a lot of people that would make perfectly fine CEO’s skipped over because they’re not already a CEO/born into connections. The strongest signal people use for determining whether they would be any good is whether they’re already one. Which is how people that torpedo a company get re-hired anyway. Unlike for example, engineers, where we assume they can’t program their way out of a pack of butter even when they come in as a principal.

dfiohnio 3y ago

[dead]

ajross 3y ago

Yes, exactly. You can flip the argument on its head and it works symmetrically. So why was it OK for executives to get huge salary increases over the last decade but not workers, since it's based on the same moral ("fairness") calculus? It's not. The moral ground has been ceded. Now it's just about "I got mine".