7 ms·

If we find this appalling, let's stop consuming the products of those who we feel are "overpaid" and visit the website, businessplace, or other endeavors of tho

If we find this appalling, let's stop consuming the products of those who we feel are "overpaid" and visit the website, businessplace, or other endeavors of those we feel are "underpaid". Tim Cook gets paid a lot (and so do many AAPL employees), but I can't help but admit that my last 3 laptops I bought with my own cash were MBP, and not a system76 or framework. And I'm more likely to visit costco than a farmer's market / local vendor.

meowtimemania 3y ago
Ironically, Costco treats its employees much better than most any locally owned shop.
- digging 3y ago
  That's probably true. The benefits of local business are 1) that dollars spent there generate more wealth for the local economy, as they're not extracted to offshore bank accounts; and 2) that there can be more accountability to and involvement with the community served. However, just because someone hasn't expanded their business to the state/national/international levels doesn't make them a good person, a good manager, a good CEO, or a good community member. The term "petty tyrant" is often used to refer to small business owners who abuse their employees and/or community.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >that dollars spent there generate more wealth for the local economy, as they're not extracted to offshore bank accounts This is only one side of the equation. Globalization also means the local economy is also "extracting" wealth from other economies. >2) that there can be more accountability to and involvement with the community served. Yeah, like car dealerships using their "accountability to and involvement" to forcibly insert themselves in the value chain?
    - digging 3y ago
      > This is only one side of the equation. Globalization also means the local economy is also "extracting" wealth from other economies. ... more than large corporations do? Nonsense > Yeah, like car dealerships using their "accountability to and involvement" to forcibly insert themselves in the value chain? I would suggest you reread the sentence you quoted and then go ahead and finish reading the rest of my comment, because this sounds like an argumentative retort but I don't think you understood what you're replying to.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >... more than large corporations do? Nonsense Corporations aren't some entities from another dimension. Their earnings must ultimately go to someone. For the global economy as a whole, all the "extraction" that's happening ultimately net out to zero. >I would suggest you reread the sentence you quoted and then go ahead and finish reading the rest of my comment, because this sounds like an argumentative retort but I don't think you understood what you're replying to. I suggest you do the same. I was simply pointing out the dark side of the dynamic you described. Yes, car dealerships are pillars of many communities. They sponsor local clubs/sporting teams and local politicians. However, all that "involvement" means they wield enormous political power, to the extent that they're able to lobby state representatives to forcibly add themselves to the automotive value chain. Whether that's better for the consumer, and the local community as a whole is questionable. After all, they're getting the money from the local community, and if their services aren't needed (why do you have to go through a dealership rather than ordering through a web app?) then they're ultimately leeches and a net negative for the community.
        digging 3y ago
        > Corporations aren't some entities from another dimension. Their earnings must ultimately go to someone. For the global economy as a whole, all the "extraction" that's happening ultimately net out to zero. I have no idea how this relates to what I was talking about. The reason I asked you that question is because the topic was "local business vs large corporations." What did you think I was talking about? > I was simply pointing out the dark side of the dynamic you described. You mean the dark side that I explicitly described in my original comment? Now it's my turn to stop reading, because this is not productive.
- latentcall 3y ago
  Right, also keep in mind Costco can afford to treat their employees well. A small mom and pop with the owner(s) and maybe one or two clerks may not be able to in the same way.
renjimen 3y ago
This is hard due to all the monopolies that exist in the modern world, and it's only possible for B2C businesses. The entire value chain is dominated by B2B where consumers have little say. I love System76 but their components are still from mega corps with stupid CEO salaries. The only effective ways to deal with this are progressive taxation and labor regulations. Bring back the 90+% top tax bracket that Thatcher and Reagan disposed of. Tie minimum wage to regional cost of living indices. Of course, this article only discusses wages. The truly wealthy don't make much from income. It's incredible that capital gains tax is less than income tax.
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  I'm still unsettled on the balance between unequal pay, and treating the government as the only redistribution solution (ie taxation). I do prefer market solutions that Charity/Philanthropy offer vs governmental spending. And sometimes I think about how many of the richest have a 100% tax bracket as they've pledged their fortunes to charity after death. Probably seems contradictory to my parent comment, but as I said I'm just not sure of the best path forward tbh.
  - renjimen 3y ago
    The nice thing about taxation though is that it doesn't rely on the whims of billionaires. Charity is unreliable and doesn't work for large, long term endeavors that modern society is built on. I recommend reading the History of Equality by Thomas Piketty to better understand the efficacy of progressive income tax and wealth tax.
  - NegativeLatency 3y ago
    There are issues with any approach but it seems like the purpose of a democratic government should be to help the common person out in situations like this, because it's the only real mechanism we have to fight back against the concentrated power that wealth brings.
  - jacobolus 3y ago
    > market solutions that Charity/Philanthropy offer In practice, laws ostensibly intended to support philanthropy are used as tax dodges, money laundering schemes, workarounds of campaign finance laws, etc., with all manner of perverse incentives and conflicts of interest involved. The big money is generally less in "market solutions" and more in "hacking the tax code for the benefit of the wealthy". In my opinion financial gifts to organizations should not offer tax write-offs for donors (especially of estate/inheritance taxes), or at any rate the maximum write-off should be capped based on plausible middle-class contributions; and universities, churches, and charities should generally pay the taxes businesses pay. If people want to spend their money on charitable activities, that's great, but the government should not be in the business of differentially subsidizing them based on the whims of the wealthy. If we want to have direct government subsidies of charities or educational institutions, it should be based on some transparent and democratically accountable grant system. If we want to help ordinary people, the most effective method is universal direct cash transfers from the government (without means testing, weird income cliffs, or bureaucratic hoops), better labor protections, and restructuring the tax code to be more progressive (e.g. toward land-value tax and away from sales tax, treating capital gains as income, adding higher-rate income tax brackets at the top end, and raising caps on payroll taxes).
legohead 3y ago
That doesn't solve anything. So what if those particular people don't make as much? Something that benefits everyone equally, while also allowing capitalistic endeavors to continue, is more reasonable. Like a living wage.
38 3y ago
Just say MacBook pro.
MattRix 3y ago
This kind of approach never works except for in the most egregious of situations. Just imagine what the state of car safety would be like if it was purely left up to the market. Regulations work.
- NegativeLatency 3y ago
  This is a great example especially considering how injuries inside cars have continued to drop (which is regulated) but injuries outside of cars have increased (we don't regulate visibility or hood/bumper height for example)
  - digging 3y ago
    Right. Regulation is what works, but it's not a magic wand. We can't keep allowing industries to write their own regulations without meaningful public input.
  - jdietrich 3y ago
    Unlike the NHTSA tests, the Euro NCAP tests include tests of pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist protection - both passive protection to mitigate injury in the event of a collision, and active protection to prevent a collision in the first place. Performance in these tests count towards the overall 5 star rating. My understanding is that NHTSA is working on preliminary research into the issue, but they're a clear 15-20 years behind Euro NCAP. https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained...
  - jacobolus 3y ago
    A lack of visibility regulation is the biggest problem in current vehicle design in my opinion. A 5' (152 cm) tall driver should be able to clearly see a small child standing a few feet away in front of or to either side of any vehicle allowed on public streets. Any vehicle modification compromising that should be strictly prohibited. Steep financial liability for pedestrian/cyclist accidents for not only the driver but also the vehicle manufacturer or anyone involved in modifying a vehicle would also help.
doesnt_know 3y ago
Isn't putting this onto the consumer a little bit of a cop out? This enormous global system of powerful corporations and nation states crafted this system because it was in their best interest. Feels sort of tone deaf to say "well, you got what you deserved, you created this sytem by buying this specific computer and cheaper food!" Night/farmer's markets are quite popular here in NZ but we haven't toppled global inquality by visiting them yet and I doubt continuing to do so is going to make a difference.
- joshthecynic 3y ago
  Of course it's a copout. This entire discussion is intellectually dishonest and deeply unserious.
  - throw10920 3y ago
    > Of course it's a copout. This entire discussion is intellectually dishonest and deeply unserious. The only intellectually dishonest comment here is this one.
- Y-bar 3y ago
  Why not? As a consumer I can choose dinner from either beef from burned amazon rainforest, or a ratatouille made from seasonal local ingredients, or anything in between. I can choose to buy a 2-tonne gas SUV or something smaller. I can choose to participate in “fast fashion”, or choose to buy some of my clothing second-hand. I can choose a vacation by flying to Greece, or hiking the local area, or anywhere in between. I can often choose to wait another year to upgrade my phone/computer/device. Corporations don’t just do stuff, they respond to our actions. Voting in booths generally works better to affect change in systems like these with externalities, but voting with action and wallets also works. I do consider that I have a responsibility to act ethically versus other people, and that includes making choices as a consumer.
  - henriquez 3y ago
    You can “choose” assuming you have disposable income. For people who need cheap clothes, food, etc. there is still a systemic issue of wealth disparity and unjust enrichment. It’s more than any one company, CEO, or consumer purchase and it should be obvious.
ensignavenger 3y ago
I think your local farmers market vendors and other local vendors are far more likely to be paying their employees minimum wage than the companies mentioned.
ta1243 3y ago
https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-the-we-should-improve-society-somewhat-comic-the-popular-panel-explained https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-the-we-sh...
- bena 3y ago
  I low key hate that comic. It makes a false equivalency. Recognizing a car could be safer isn't contradicted by owning one. If anything, ownership should give you more insight into the material problems of the item in question. Likewise, society is just everything. So suggesting improvements isn't contradictory. However, there is some hypocrisy in lambasting the maker of the very luxury goods you purchase for exploiting people. You are kind of justifying the companies' exploitation by purchasing from them. And you can advocate for change from these makers without supporting them with your money. And some people do come with the attitude of "I don't want to change a single thing about my behaviors or sacrifice a single thing, but I expect the world to get better somehow."
  - plasmatix 3y ago
    I think you’re misunderstanding the comic. I’ve always taken it to be exactly what you’re saying, thus the “I am very intelligent”. Because he’s not.
    - mega_dingus 3y ago
      The linked article explains exactly this
    - bena 3y ago
      But it’s the “I am very intelligent” guy in every panel. The comic itself implies the first panel and final panel are the same criticism. And if you point out any hypocrisy in a person’s action, someone will trot this out as if we can never call out people for contributing to a problem they are complaining about even if contributing is completely optional.
      - 3y ago
dwighttk 3y ago
"please move inefficiencies to things that are much more opaque and probably way more inefficient. Thanks"
- wharvle 3y ago
  “Please increase your costs and inconvenience for this product category double-digit percentages, in order to send a message so tiny nobody will notice” Consumer action is notoriously ineffective. It’s a well-studied thing in poli-sci and economics. You need government to overcome coordination problems there, even with overwhelming support for a cause. Because the price if you “cooperate” is way too high unless a huge proportion of others choose “cooperate”, and you can’t tell what they’re picking until after the fact. [edit] it’s fine if your goal is to have good feels, on the ethics front. It’s a total waste of time and effort and expense if you want to have an effect on anything other than your own feelings.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Taking your apple example, apple products are not tim cook products, and it seems confused to suggest that people should punish every apple employee because of the actions of a single one. Shouldn't corrective action be directed at individual offending persons, not applied as collective punishment?
lumost 3y ago
It's a question of extremes. With the exception of Zuckerburg, these are professional managers. If they stopped doing anything day to day, their companies would remain successful and they'd keep getting paid. If they delegated their entire workload to their staff - the same would be true. In both of the above situations, the company may see it's performance and value increase. While the above scenarios reflect the CEO's contribution to an organization's ability to capture value - there is a useful debate on whether these organizations should be able to capture that value. If the organization has a monopoly, then they can arbitrarily increase the amount of value they extract at the cost of other, more productive, sectors of the economy. Over-rewarding organizations and their leaders for capturing value incentivizes such anti-competitive behavior.
- iamthirsty 3y ago
  > If they stopped doing anything day to day, their companies would remain successful and they'd keep getting paid. Have you been close to these positions in a huge company? I really don't think that's the case at all. Ex: Look what happen to DIS after Iger left.
  - lumost 3y ago
    Yes, three or four times now. Although not with the ones mentioned in this clock. Most senior managers can coast for protracted periods as it's rare to replace the CEO in an upswing, and the CEO mainly has to not piss off those they work with. It's tough for any senior manager to read the tea leaves reliably, and as such - they are often replaced after N months/years when some decision goes poorly. The actions/results/impact of decisions are spread so far between that it's often difficult to assess a senior leaders impact in an organization. DIS has had some high profile troubles since Iger left - but he may simply have seen the writing on the wall that the time to go out on a high note had come. I can think of several firms with similarly well-timed exits.
madsbuch 3y ago
This is a straw man by people who are afraid of fair regulation and market dynamics. Myself I am from Denmark. Here we don't have a minimum wage, but we do have a strong union culture. This ensures power dynamics on the labor market ensuring that everybody gets a fair wage.
gumby 3y ago
Easier said than done, as there is a lot of transactional asymmetry. At first blush that may sound bizarre, as there are a lot more consumers than providers. But from an individual company’s PoV that may be reversed: internal decisions are easier to make than customer-responsive ones, especially as the number of customers goes up. This is why we have things like food safety regulations.
wise_young_man 3y ago
Try avoiding Nestle. It’s sadly near impossible.

meowtimemania 3y ago

Ironically, Costco treats its employees much better than most any locally owned shop.

digging 3y ago
That's probably true. The benefits of local business are 1) that dollars spent there generate more wealth for the local economy, as they're not extracted to offshore bank accounts; and 2) that there can be more accountability to and involvement with the community served. However, just because someone hasn't expanded their business to the state/national/international levels doesn't make them a good person, a good manager, a good CEO, or a good community member. The term "petty tyrant" is often used to refer to small business owners who abuse their employees and/or community.
- gruez 3y ago
  >that dollars spent there generate more wealth for the local economy, as they're not extracted to offshore bank accounts This is only one side of the equation. Globalization also means the local economy is also "extracting" wealth from other economies. >2) that there can be more accountability to and involvement with the community served. Yeah, like car dealerships using their "accountability to and involvement" to forcibly insert themselves in the value chain?
  - digging 3y ago
    > This is only one side of the equation. Globalization also means the local economy is also "extracting" wealth from other economies. ... more than large corporations do? Nonsense > Yeah, like car dealerships using their "accountability to and involvement" to forcibly insert themselves in the value chain? I would suggest you reread the sentence you quoted and then go ahead and finish reading the rest of my comment, because this sounds like an argumentative retort but I don't think you understood what you're replying to.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >... more than large corporations do? Nonsense Corporations aren't some entities from another dimension. Their earnings must ultimately go to someone. For the global economy as a whole, all the "extraction" that's happening ultimately net out to zero. >I would suggest you reread the sentence you quoted and then go ahead and finish reading the rest of my comment, because this sounds like an argumentative retort but I don't think you understood what you're replying to. I suggest you do the same. I was simply pointing out the dark side of the dynamic you described. Yes, car dealerships are pillars of many communities. They sponsor local clubs/sporting teams and local politicians. However, all that "involvement" means they wield enormous political power, to the extent that they're able to lobby state representatives to forcibly add themselves to the automotive value chain. Whether that's better for the consumer, and the local community as a whole is questionable. After all, they're getting the money from the local community, and if their services aren't needed (why do you have to go through a dealership rather than ordering through a web app?) then they're ultimately leeches and a net negative for the community.
      - digging 3y ago
        > Corporations aren't some entities from another dimension. Their earnings must ultimately go to someone. For the global economy as a whole, all the "extraction" that's happening ultimately net out to zero. I have no idea how this relates to what I was talking about. The reason I asked you that question is because the topic was "local business vs large corporations." What did you think I was talking about? > I was simply pointing out the dark side of the dynamic you described. You mean the dark side that I explicitly described in my original comment? Now it's my turn to stop reading, because this is not productive.
latentcall 3y ago
Right, also keep in mind Costco can afford to treat their employees well. A small mom and pop with the owner(s) and maybe one or two clerks may not be able to in the same way.

renjimen 3y ago

This is hard due to all the monopolies that exist in the modern world, and it's only possible for B2C businesses. The entire value chain is dominated by B2B where consumers have little say. I love System76 but their components are still from mega corps with stupid CEO salaries. The only effective ways to deal with this are progressive taxation and labor regulations. Bring back the 90+% top tax bracket that Thatcher and Reagan disposed of. Tie minimum wage to regional cost of living indices. Of course, this article only discusses wages. The truly wealthy don't make much from income. It's incredible that capital gains tax is less than income tax.

maerF0x0 3y ago
I'm still unsettled on the balance between unequal pay, and treating the government as the only redistribution solution (ie taxation). I do prefer market solutions that Charity/Philanthropy offer vs governmental spending. And sometimes I think about how many of the richest have a 100% tax bracket as they've pledged their fortunes to charity after death. Probably seems contradictory to my parent comment, but as I said I'm just not sure of the best path forward tbh.
- renjimen 3y ago
  The nice thing about taxation though is that it doesn't rely on the whims of billionaires. Charity is unreliable and doesn't work for large, long term endeavors that modern society is built on. I recommend reading the History of Equality by Thomas Piketty to better understand the efficacy of progressive income tax and wealth tax.
- NegativeLatency 3y ago
  There are issues with any approach but it seems like the purpose of a democratic government should be to help the common person out in situations like this, because it's the only real mechanism we have to fight back against the concentrated power that wealth brings.
- jacobolus 3y ago
  > market solutions that Charity/Philanthropy offer In practice, laws ostensibly intended to support philanthropy are used as tax dodges, money laundering schemes, workarounds of campaign finance laws, etc., with all manner of perverse incentives and conflicts of interest involved. The big money is generally less in "market solutions" and more in "hacking the tax code for the benefit of the wealthy". In my opinion financial gifts to organizations should not offer tax write-offs for donors (especially of estate/inheritance taxes), or at any rate the maximum write-off should be capped based on plausible middle-class contributions; and universities, churches, and charities should generally pay the taxes businesses pay. If people want to spend their money on charitable activities, that's great, but the government should not be in the business of differentially subsidizing them based on the whims of the wealthy. If we want to have direct government subsidies of charities or educational institutions, it should be based on some transparent and democratically accountable grant system. If we want to help ordinary people, the most effective method is universal direct cash transfers from the government (without means testing, weird income cliffs, or bureaucratic hoops), better labor protections, and restructuring the tax code to be more progressive (e.g. toward land-value tax and away from sales tax, treating capital gains as income, adding higher-rate income tax brackets at the top end, and raising caps on payroll taxes).

legohead 3y ago

That doesn't solve anything. So what if those particular people don't make as much? Something that benefits everyone equally, while also allowing capitalistic endeavors to continue, is more reasonable. Like a living wage.

38 3y ago

Just say MacBook pro.

MattRix 3y ago

This kind of approach never works except for in the most egregious of situations. Just imagine what the state of car safety would be like if it was purely left up to the market. Regulations work.

NegativeLatency 3y ago
This is a great example especially considering how injuries inside cars have continued to drop (which is regulated) but injuries outside of cars have increased (we don't regulate visibility or hood/bumper height for example)
- digging 3y ago
  Right. Regulation is what works, but it's not a magic wand. We can't keep allowing industries to write their own regulations without meaningful public input.
- jdietrich 3y ago
  Unlike the NHTSA tests, the Euro NCAP tests include tests of pedestrian, cyclist and motorcyclist protection - both passive protection to mitigate injury in the event of a collision, and active protection to prevent a collision in the first place. Performance in these tests count towards the overall 5 star rating. My understanding is that NHTSA is working on preliminary research into the issue, but they're a clear 15-20 years behind Euro NCAP. https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/ https://www.euroncap.com/en/car-safety/the-ratings-explained...
- jacobolus 3y ago
  A lack of visibility regulation is the biggest problem in current vehicle design in my opinion. A 5' (152 cm) tall driver should be able to clearly see a small child standing a few feet away in front of or to either side of any vehicle allowed on public streets. Any vehicle modification compromising that should be strictly prohibited. Steep financial liability for pedestrian/cyclist accidents for not only the driver but also the vehicle manufacturer or anyone involved in modifying a vehicle would also help.

doesnt_know 3y ago

Isn't putting this onto the consumer a little bit of a cop out? This enormous global system of powerful corporations and nation states crafted this system because it was in their best interest. Feels sort of tone deaf to say "well, you got what you deserved, you created this sytem by buying this specific computer and cheaper food!" Night/farmer's markets are quite popular here in NZ but we haven't toppled global inquality by visiting them yet and I doubt continuing to do so is going to make a difference.

joshthecynic 3y ago
Of course it's a copout. This entire discussion is intellectually dishonest and deeply unserious.
- throw10920 3y ago
  > Of course it's a copout. This entire discussion is intellectually dishonest and deeply unserious. The only intellectually dishonest comment here is this one.
Y-bar 3y ago
Why not? As a consumer I can choose dinner from either beef from burned amazon rainforest, or a ratatouille made from seasonal local ingredients, or anything in between. I can choose to buy a 2-tonne gas SUV or something smaller. I can choose to participate in “fast fashion”, or choose to buy some of my clothing second-hand. I can choose a vacation by flying to Greece, or hiking the local area, or anywhere in between. I can often choose to wait another year to upgrade my phone/computer/device. Corporations don’t just do stuff, they respond to our actions. Voting in booths generally works better to affect change in systems like these with externalities, but voting with action and wallets also works. I do consider that I have a responsibility to act ethically versus other people, and that includes making choices as a consumer.
- henriquez 3y ago
  You can “choose” assuming you have disposable income. For people who need cheap clothes, food, etc. there is still a systemic issue of wealth disparity and unjust enrichment. It’s more than any one company, CEO, or consumer purchase and it should be obvious.

ensignavenger 3y ago

I think your local farmers market vendors and other local vendors are far more likely to be paying their employees minimum wage than the companies mentioned.

ta1243 3y ago

https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-the-we-should-improve-society-somewhat-comic-the-popular-panel-explained https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-is-the-we-sh...

bena 3y ago
I low key hate that comic. It makes a false equivalency. Recognizing a car could be safer isn't contradicted by owning one. If anything, ownership should give you more insight into the material problems of the item in question. Likewise, society is just everything. So suggesting improvements isn't contradictory. However, there is some hypocrisy in lambasting the maker of the very luxury goods you purchase for exploiting people. You are kind of justifying the companies' exploitation by purchasing from them. And you can advocate for change from these makers without supporting them with your money. And some people do come with the attitude of "I don't want to change a single thing about my behaviors or sacrifice a single thing, but I expect the world to get better somehow."
- plasmatix 3y ago
  I think you’re misunderstanding the comic. I’ve always taken it to be exactly what you’re saying, thus the “I am very intelligent”. Because he’s not.
  - mega_dingus 3y ago
    The linked article explains exactly this
  - bena 3y ago
    But it’s the “I am very intelligent” guy in every panel. The comic itself implies the first panel and final panel are the same criticism. And if you point out any hypocrisy in a person’s action, someone will trot this out as if we can never call out people for contributing to a problem they are complaining about even if contributing is completely optional.
    - 3y ago

dwighttk 3y ago

"please move inefficiencies to things that are much more opaque and probably way more inefficient. Thanks"

wharvle 3y ago
“Please increase your costs and inconvenience for this product category double-digit percentages, in order to send a message so tiny nobody will notice” Consumer action is notoriously ineffective. It’s a well-studied thing in poli-sci and economics. You need government to overcome coordination problems there, even with overwhelming support for a cause. Because the price if you “cooperate” is way too high unless a huge proportion of others choose “cooperate”, and you can’t tell what they’re picking until after the fact. [edit] it’s fine if your goal is to have good feels, on the ethics front. It’s a total waste of time and effort and expense if you want to have an effect on anything other than your own feelings.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

Taking your apple example, apple products are not tim cook products, and it seems confused to suggest that people should punish every apple employee because of the actions of a single one. Shouldn't corrective action be directed at individual offending persons, not applied as collective punishment?

lumost 3y ago

It's a question of extremes. With the exception of Zuckerburg, these are professional managers. If they stopped doing anything day to day, their companies would remain successful and they'd keep getting paid. If they delegated their entire workload to their staff - the same would be true. In both of the above situations, the company may see it's performance and value increase. While the above scenarios reflect the CEO's contribution to an organization's ability to capture value - there is a useful debate on whether these organizations should be able to capture that value. If the organization has a monopoly, then they can arbitrarily increase the amount of value they extract at the cost of other, more productive, sectors of the economy. Over-rewarding organizations and their leaders for capturing value incentivizes such anti-competitive behavior.

iamthirsty 3y ago
> If they stopped doing anything day to day, their companies would remain successful and they'd keep getting paid. Have you been close to these positions in a huge company? I really don't think that's the case at all. Ex: Look what happen to DIS after Iger left.
- lumost 3y ago
  Yes, three or four times now. Although not with the ones mentioned in this clock. Most senior managers can coast for protracted periods as it's rare to replace the CEO in an upswing, and the CEO mainly has to not piss off those they work with. It's tough for any senior manager to read the tea leaves reliably, and as such - they are often replaced after N months/years when some decision goes poorly. The actions/results/impact of decisions are spread so far between that it's often difficult to assess a senior leaders impact in an organization. DIS has had some high profile troubles since Iger left - but he may simply have seen the writing on the wall that the time to go out on a high note had come. I can think of several firms with similarly well-timed exits.

madsbuch 3y ago

This is a straw man by people who are afraid of fair regulation and market dynamics. Myself I am from Denmark. Here we don't have a minimum wage, but we do have a strong union culture. This ensures power dynamics on the labor market ensuring that everybody gets a fair wage.

gumby 3y ago

Easier said than done, as there is a lot of transactional asymmetry. At first blush that may sound bizarre, as there are a lot more consumers than providers. But from an individual company’s PoV that may be reversed: internal decisions are easier to make than customer-responsive ones, especially as the number of customers goes up. This is why we have things like food safety regulations.

wise_young_man 3y ago

Try avoiding Nestle. It’s sadly near impossible.