3 ms·
The people who do/did the actual work to get those customers aren't the corporate executives, though: they're the engineers, janitors, sales team, etc. The exec
by Iftheshoefits 12y ago
The people who do/did the actual work to get those customers aren't the corporate executives, though: they're the engineers, janitors, sales team, etc. The executives in corporations are generally there because they have connections and/or a generational history of networking to serve as a very high ground from which to "bootstrap" or raise themselves. Not all; in fact some very wealthy owners and executives came from humble, next-to-nothing backgrounds (e.g. Whatsapp); but most--enough to make the generalization not fallacious.
There's absolutely no empirically or rationally supportable argument that executives in general ought to earn even 50 times the lowest-paid employee's wage, much less the 100s of times they currently are. This isn't to say there are no arguments for such a condition, or that there are no specific cases where empirically or rationally supportable arguments exist.
Whether and how others might complain about sports or celebrity personalities is entirely irrelevant to that issue.
- IanDrake 12y agoA statistical model can't justify high salaries for executives, so it's not rational...so what? The market has decided what an executive is worth and that's good enough for me. There is no better system. Markets can act irrational because it is the result of human behavior, which is often irrational. Take all the irrationality out of humans and nothing of great achievement happens. No Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, no Bugatti Veyron, no guys in squirrel suits flying down mountains.... Thanks, but I'll keep my free market with the penalty that some irrationality makes a few people here and there a little more wealthy than they deserve.