5 ms·

I think it's more a problem of prioritising finite resources. Pointing to his salary is just an ad hominem attack, and does nothing to progress the discussion.

I think it's more a problem of prioritising finite resources. Pointing to his salary is just an ad hominem attack, and does nothing to progress the discussion. Basically, say you have a thousand employees and $5 million. If you spend $2 million on two of them, then it only leaves $3 million to spend on benefits for the remaining 998 employees. Like it or not, it's a zero sum game. It's a tricky ethical dilemma.

mgkimsal 13y ago
And when you have extra profits of hundreds of millions, you can take a few extra of those millions and shore up the insurance coffers so that future outlier scenarios don't give people the option of scapegoating that section of the company first.
rdtsc 13y ago
> Pointing to his salary is just an ad hominem attack ... and does nothing to progress the discussion. Isn't it the other side of the coin? I think it progresses the discussion pretty well. The profit pool a company makes is a finite resource. Let's talk about that then too if we are going to bring in logic fallacies and game theory into the game. So let's look at it this way -- You have a thousand employees and $5 million. And you spend $4 million as salary to the CEO and then spread around the rest to everyone else and it only leave $1 million for everyone else. It is a tricky dilemma? Or is it? What is the sum, for this "0 sum" game? Whoever set up that insurance pool might have been pretty incompetent and stupid for not accounting for such events. I am assuming there is no explosive epidemic of expensive-baby-threatening-diseases amongst AOL employee's families. So there is one person to fire on the spot during a "town hall meeting"