3 ms·

It's fairly fundamental capitalism, right? The world is not overflowing with people who can even theoretically lead a $77bn company and will be acceptable cand

It's fairly fundamental capitalism, right? The world is not overflowing with people who can even theoretically lead a $77bn company and will be acceptable candidates in the eyes of the board/shareholders. So you will need to pay accordingly if you want one. It's like wondering why pro sports teams give megabucks guaranteed contracts to superstars. There aren't a lot of them and there is a lot of money at stake when it comes to running a successful pro sports team. So they cost a lot of money to acquire. I am by no means defending this. Whether or not one thinks there are better alternatives to capitalism, it's hard to deny that capitalism produces some pretty crap outcomes.

NikolaNovak 3y ago
In addition to that, companies want CEOs to take some level of risk to grow the company, And to take the fall when needed for bad decisions / press / accidents and incidents. The golden parachute, as is my understanding, is an all but explicit pay to take responsibility and be the fall guy / resign with many a hollow sounding apology letter when and as needed from shareholder perspective (which may not overlap from our own perspective on when that would be needed or appropriate). Plus everything op said about capitalism and market.
- bitcharmer 3y ago
  I keep seeing "responsibility" brought up but what responsibility do you mean? I have never seen a CEO suffering unpleasant consequences of their own failures. It's always a golden parachute and failing upwards for these people.
bitcharmer 3y ago
> The world is not overflowing with people who can even theoretically lead a $77bn company I strongly disagree. It's a matter of surrounding yourself with capable people and there's a huge factor of financial inertia. I guarantee you most HN-ers could run Google or Apple for 5 years without causing their value to plummet.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  A company in good financial shape with strong positive inertia? Sure, but I don't know that describes Boeing at the time of his hire. (Maybe it does, not sure) I still don't necessarily disagree, but you left out the second part of my sentence which is rather significant: "and will be acceptable candidates in the eyes of the board/shareholders." Sure, Random HN User #587942 might be a decent Apple CEO. Hell, they might even make a great POTUS. Aside from having one's finger on the nuclear button, I think a POTUS is primarily a strong delegator in much the sense that a CEO is. That doesn't mean they are going to be remotely acceptable as a candidate in the eyes of the board + shareholders. Nobody is going to stick their neck out for Random HN User #587942. They are going to pick somebody with a positive track record of leading big companies. This isn't ideal! I'm not defending it. I'm just saying why it happens. It's the C-suite equivalent of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."

NikolaNovak 3y ago

In addition to that, companies want CEOs to take some level of risk to grow the company, And to take the fall when needed for bad decisions / press / accidents and incidents. The golden parachute, as is my understanding, is an all but explicit pay to take responsibility and be the fall guy / resign with many a hollow sounding apology letter when and as needed from shareholder perspective (which may not overlap from our own perspective on when that would be needed or appropriate). Plus everything op said about capitalism and market.

bitcharmer 3y ago
I keep seeing "responsibility" brought up but what responsibility do you mean? I have never seen a CEO suffering unpleasant consequences of their own failures. It's always a golden parachute and failing upwards for these people.

bitcharmer 3y ago

> The world is not overflowing with people who can even theoretically lead a $77bn company I strongly disagree. It's a matter of surrounding yourself with capable people and there's a huge factor of financial inertia. I guarantee you most HN-ers could run Google or Apple for 5 years without causing their value to plummet.

JohnBooty 3y ago
A company in good financial shape with strong positive inertia? Sure, but I don't know that describes Boeing at the time of his hire. (Maybe it does, not sure) I still don't necessarily disagree, but you left out the second part of my sentence which is rather significant: "and will be acceptable candidates in the eyes of the board/shareholders." Sure, Random HN User #587942 might be a decent Apple CEO. Hell, they might even make a great POTUS. Aside from having one's finger on the nuclear button, I think a POTUS is primarily a strong delegator in much the sense that a CEO is. That doesn't mean they are going to be remotely acceptable as a candidate in the eyes of the board + shareholders. Nobody is going to stick their neck out for Random HN User #587942. They are going to pick somebody with a positive track record of leading big companies. This isn't ideal! I'm not defending it. I'm just saying why it happens. It's the C-suite equivalent of "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."