3 ms·
I think it's an outlet for general frustration with the justification for high executive compensation (and returns on capital, for that matter) often being "the
by vundercind 2y ago
I think it's an outlet for general frustration with the justification for high executive compensation (and returns on capital, for that matter) often being "they have much more responsibility and risk" when the actual downside is typically nonexistent, and even if there are consequences, the outcome is something like "LOL still richer than any ten of you combined will ever be", i.e. the "risk" is all fake.
- randomdata 2y ago> "they have much more responsibility and risk" Perhaps you've misinterpreted that statement? It is the board that takes on greater risk with executives as compared to other employees. The executives are given the keys to the kingdom, which means only an exceedingly small group of trusted individuals can be considered for the job. By the transitive properties of supply and demand, when supply is limited, price goes up.
- galactus 2y agoThe thing is, high executives have become a self-perpetuating class entrenched in corporate boards, this is the reason CEOs comoensation keeps skyrocketing, not supply and demand. And this entrenchment obviously also stifles accountability.
- randomdata 2y agoHow does this self-perpetuating entrenchment not become a factor in what establishes the supply and demand, instead managing to exist as something off to the side?