this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
1308 points (96.2% liked)

memes

10696 readers
2503 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1308
"We've won, but at what cost?" (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
333 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I love all the vague, ambiguous examples that say nothing.

I mean, the Intel CEO just literally quote the Bible... I guess you need a lot of education for that

Look, I understand you can't get a high school dropout to do this job, but can they really justify earning 10000x more than other people in their companies? Are they 10000x more valuable??

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I would imagine they can find a perfectly good CEO with something like a 500k/yr salary

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I believe so as well, and it would be a true representation of their value to the company

Throw in some nice perks like a company car with driver, and a nice expense account as I imagine they have tons of business meals to be generous

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Look, I understand you can't get a high school dropout to do this job, but can they really justify earning 10000x more than other people in their companies? Are they 10000x more valuable??

Everyone here is talking past each other. There's one crowd raging that CEOs do literally nothing, which is objectively untrue. When that is pointed out, people assume it to be an argument that these CEOs should be paid that much, which it's not.

CEOs do things. If they're non-shit, they'll work significantly more hours than normal workers. No, that does absolutely not justify paying them magnitudes more. Their salaries are inflated, because publicly traded companies pay them that much.
Because while the effort a CEO puts in does not match the salary, the impact of their work does so more closely. As in, if they're doing a bad job, the losses for the company will far exceed that salary.
More importantly, though, you want to keep one CEO for as long as possible. Even if their strategies are mediocre, constantly changing CEOs and therefore flipflopping between strategies is worse.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

When people say "literally nothing" I just assume they are exaggerating and adjust it to "nowhere near enough to justify their salaries". No need to argue that point.

The issue here is that if they do a bad job and lose a shit ton of money, they'll just get a golden parachute and live but ruin another company later, and this is the worst case scenario. But if you do a great job under said CEO, you'll get a pink slip and a 1 finger salute

The entire game is rigged for them, heads they win, tails we lose

So, even agreeing they some some work and said work could be important, I still hold zero sympathy since they don't need it, and definitely do not deserve it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Tired: CEOs, changing CEOs

Wired: BDFL

Hey, it works wonders for Python.