I can tell it’s the feelings part of you that is saying this, because the thinking part might instead realize that CEOs aren’t even compensated in that way.
Bezos, for instance, only “earns” $80,000/year. That’s his paycheck.
Most CEOS get the bulk of their compensation through stock, though there are many other lesser forms as well. (Cars, jets, homes, etc.)
If your leadership is 1% better than your competitor, that could be the threshold needed to wipe your competitor out of the market, increasing company profit margins by hundreds of percent.
To draw a parallel, think about school grades. Going from 60 to 70% is insignificant. Going from 70 to 80% is a little more interesting. But going from 96 to 97? That has significantly more meaning than 66 to 67.
Those end numbers matter. A CEO being a tiny bit better has a huge impact.
Fixing the CEOs pay isn’t going to do anything for a plethora of reasons. Late stage capitalism is simply a failure and it shows.
I suspect rich influential people of actively keeping “their inner circle” small so that “access to influential people” is such a scarce valuable resource that they can then sell at exorbitant prices (salaries) to companies.
deleted by creator
I can tell it’s the feelings part of you that is saying this, because the thinking part might instead realize that CEOs aren’t even compensated in that way.
Bezos, for instance, only “earns” $80,000/year. That’s his paycheck.
Most CEOS get the bulk of their compensation through stock, though there are many other lesser forms as well. (Cars, jets, homes, etc.)
deleted by creator
If the lowest paid employee becomes 50% better, nothing at the macro scale changes.
If the CEO becomes a fraction better, the effect is multiplied throughout the company.
deleted by creator
If your leadership is 1% better than your competitor, that could be the threshold needed to wipe your competitor out of the market, increasing company profit margins by hundreds of percent.
To draw a parallel, think about school grades. Going from 60 to 70% is insignificant. Going from 70 to 80% is a little more interesting. But going from 96 to 97? That has significantly more meaning than 66 to 67.
Those end numbers matter. A CEO being a tiny bit better has a huge impact.
Fixing the CEOs pay isn’t going to do anything for a plethora of reasons. Late stage capitalism is simply a failure and it shows.
deleted by creator
I suspect rich influential people of actively keeping “their inner circle” small so that “access to influential people” is such a scarce valuable resource that they can then sell at exorbitant prices (salaries) to companies.