"Talent" acquisition is a misconception. I find the term insulting, given that (in bubble times like this) people a lot less talented (and skilled, etc.) than m

"Talent" acquisition is a misconception. I find the term insulting, given that (in bubble times like this) people a lot less talented (and skilled, etc.) than me regularly get acqui-hired at $10+ million per head. Call it an HR acquisition. Calling it a talent acquisition is, in many of these cases, an insult to people who have the talent. Just why do these companies buy "talent" at a panic price? I have some theories that are partial explanations, but mostly it's tax. Also, it ends up in a different place on the balance sheet than a typical HR expenditure. It has little to do with the people being bought, and it offers a gigantic arbitrage for investors with the connections to make these deals happen.