4 ms·
> settling for a second-best CEO to save a 7-figure sum just doesn’t make sense. Really? You expect the CEO to make all significant decisions, all on his own?
by denton-scratch 3y ago
> settling for a second-best CEO to save a 7-figure sum just doesn’t make sense.
Really? You expect the CEO to make all significant decisions, all on his own? No wonder you think the CEO of a billion-dollar company needs a 7-digit salary.
I think the main job of CEO is to appoint useful directors, and promote competent managers. That's certainly a challenging job; but it's a job you can learn, like any management job. I'd even agree that most people are unsuited to that work, as most people are unsuited to any kind of management.
But it doesn't call for some kind of superstar, a one-off snowflake "talent".
> But our mayor oversees thousands of employees and makes decisions that influence hundreds of millions of dollars of spending.
Right; arguably your Mayor might be worth $450K. I'd be upset about my representative being paid that much out of scarce public funds; but that's not even in the same ballpark as the going rate for the CEO of a billion-dollar company.
- csharpminor 3y agoI’m engaging in good faith, no need for ad-homonyms. No, I do not expect a CEO to make those decisions on their own. They also usually bring a team (or make choices about who to keep/remove). So even if they’re not deciding directly, they’re only a step or two removed. Many of the multi-million dollar bets being placed might just be on who to hire to make a decision and execute. Incidentally, those key hires are often why CEOs command such a price. Their price simply reflects that power in human networks is highly consolidated. CEOs absolutely leverage their position as gatekeepers here. All this to say why I don’t think we’ll be successful in curbing CEO pay, and should instead just focus on taxation.
- denton-scratch 3y agoNo "ad-homonym" (I like that version!) I didn't attack you, I critiqued your remarks (you can tell, because I cited them).