5 ms·

Exactly; is someone who is essentially a replaceable scapegoat really worth millions per year in salary?

cess11 2y ago
Sure, if it allows owners to stay in control and keep profiting from the people that perform the labour in the organisation. It's someone you can pin board and shareholder decisions on, as well as changes in market and accidents, that just goes away and lets some other people keep their power and profits instead of being accountable for their mistakes or lack of strategic performance.
- klipt 2y ago
  But if it were just that, plenty of people would be willing to take the blame for less money. I think the problem is you have to hire someone highly qualified and with relevant experience to at least show you're doing due diligence, and those people aren't cheap.
  - cess11 2y ago
    It has to be someone who looks somehow impressive, it can't just be a random homeless person doing it for a meal, that would look like the enterprise is doing something criminal. Pay plays a part in that, it signals that the person is extraordinarily competent and all around great and important. In large corporations CEO:s aren't very important, it's just one person who mainly collects and structures information from people closer to the work and makes public appearances on behalf of the corporation and does paper shuffling required by the state and so on. It's not rocket surgery. Using this person to protect the reputation and image of shareholders and the board as well is a 'no-brainer' decision to make if your interests are well served by it.
- dash2 2y ago
  I very much dislike these threads where two people act like sockpuppets of a single not-very-advanced llm, agreeing with each other's views which are invariably exaggerated, uninformed and cynical. I've been seeing more of them recently; if you see one, downvote it. American capitalism has lots of problems. The idea that CEOs "almost always" have no real-world experience is hardly worth arguing against: "almost always" is meaningless rhetoric and "real-world" likewise (what counts as real-world experience for Google? WPP? Northrop Grumman?). Jensen Huang is mentioned literally at the top of this thread and is an obvious counterexample.
  - cess11 2y ago
    Sorry, I don't mean for my views to hurt your feelings. I find it obvious from the context that they were referring to celebrity CEO:s in global corporations and not Mom or Pop in some small mom-and-pop corner store. When I look at en.wikipedia on Huang it seems he graduated into a managing role and then founded Nvidia. By "real-world experience" I'd mean experience as a worker, but I can't answer for the person you're actually quoting. However, it's an interesting example. Clearly Huang has managed to promote an image to you that is very different from mine. As I see it, Nvidia is a main supplier of hardware for globally fashionable grifts and scams, like large portions of so called 'crypto' and 'AI'. I also expect Nvidia to be an important supplier in the war industry, and I'm sure it is in surveillance tyranny.
    - dash2 2y ago
      Huang started as a chip designer and then founded a company developing chips. What other kind of work experience would be relevant? AI contains scams, but also obviously important real progress; your points about war and surveillance are pure mood affiliation and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
      - cess11 2y ago
        Production of chips, for example. One could argue that design is a form of administration rather than work. I'd say so called AI is largely a scam. It's wobbly databases with non-deterministic query languages dressed up as a substitute for intelligence. Email is similarly a scam. Through mail you send someone an item, which might or might not have some script on it. Email is very different, and it's largely used for spam, even though the name seems to say it is very similar. Is this what you call progress? No, I'm pointing out that Nvidia are supplying criminals and tyrants with the tools they need for their abusive and oppressive activities. I do not expect your mood to change from having this pointed out, rather the opposite, I expect you to already be somewhat aware of it. Personally, I try to avoid doing business with such people, and I would prefer to not be dependent on their enablers, though that is almost impossible for systemic reasons.
SkiFire13 2y ago
To be fair if I were to be a scapegoat for Boeing there's no way I would do that for cheap.
cootsnuck 2y ago
When company valuations are fundamentally based on "faith to perform well", yes. It's a product of touting a speculative economy as one of "rational actors". CEOs function as mythological heroes more than anything. So there's no number too high to pay since even their defeat can be incorporated into the ongoing myth of the brand. It's very strange to me.

Sure, if it allows owners to stay in control and keep profiting from the people that perform the labour in the organisation. It's someone you can pin board and shareholder decisions on, as well as changes in market and accidents, that just goes away and lets some other people keep their power and profits instead of being accountable for their mistakes or lack of strategic performance.

klipt 2y ago
But if it were just that, plenty of people would be willing to take the blame for less money. I think the problem is you have to hire someone highly qualified and with relevant experience to at least show you're doing due diligence, and those people aren't cheap.
- cess11 2y ago
  It has to be someone who looks somehow impressive, it can't just be a random homeless person doing it for a meal, that would look like the enterprise is doing something criminal. Pay plays a part in that, it signals that the person is extraordinarily competent and all around great and important. In large corporations CEO:s aren't very important, it's just one person who mainly collects and structures information from people closer to the work and makes public appearances on behalf of the corporation and does paper shuffling required by the state and so on. It's not rocket surgery. Using this person to protect the reputation and image of shareholders and the board as well is a 'no-brainer' decision to make if your interests are well served by it.
dash2 2y ago
I very much dislike these threads where two people act like sockpuppets of a single not-very-advanced llm, agreeing with each other's views which are invariably exaggerated, uninformed and cynical. I've been seeing more of them recently; if you see one, downvote it. American capitalism has lots of problems. The idea that CEOs "almost always" have no real-world experience is hardly worth arguing against: "almost always" is meaningless rhetoric and "real-world" likewise (what counts as real-world experience for Google? WPP? Northrop Grumman?). Jensen Huang is mentioned literally at the top of this thread and is an obvious counterexample.
- cess11 2y ago
  Sorry, I don't mean for my views to hurt your feelings. I find it obvious from the context that they were referring to celebrity CEO:s in global corporations and not Mom or Pop in some small mom-and-pop corner store. When I look at en.wikipedia on Huang it seems he graduated into a managing role and then founded Nvidia. By "real-world experience" I'd mean experience as a worker, but I can't answer for the person you're actually quoting. However, it's an interesting example. Clearly Huang has managed to promote an image to you that is very different from mine. As I see it, Nvidia is a main supplier of hardware for globally fashionable grifts and scams, like large portions of so called 'crypto' and 'AI'. I also expect Nvidia to be an important supplier in the war industry, and I'm sure it is in surveillance tyranny.
  - dash2 2y ago
    Huang started as a chip designer and then founded a company developing chips. What other kind of work experience would be relevant? AI contains scams, but also obviously important real progress; your points about war and surveillance are pure mood affiliation and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
    - cess11 2y ago
      Production of chips, for example. One could argue that design is a form of administration rather than work. I'd say so called AI is largely a scam. It's wobbly databases with non-deterministic query languages dressed up as a substitute for intelligence. Email is similarly a scam. Through mail you send someone an item, which might or might not have some script on it. Email is very different, and it's largely used for spam, even though the name seems to say it is very similar. Is this what you call progress? No, I'm pointing out that Nvidia are supplying criminals and tyrants with the tools they need for their abusive and oppressive activities. I do not expect your mood to change from having this pointed out, rather the opposite, I expect you to already be somewhat aware of it. Personally, I try to avoid doing business with such people, and I would prefer to not be dependent on their enablers, though that is almost impossible for systemic reasons.

SkiFire13 2y ago

To be fair if I were to be a scapegoat for Boeing there's no way I would do that for cheap.

cootsnuck 2y ago

When company valuations are fundamentally based on "faith to perform well", yes. It's a product of touting a speculative economy as one of "rational actors". CEOs function as mythological heroes more than anything. So there's no number too high to pay since even their defeat can be incorporated into the ongoing myth of the brand. It's very strange to me.