There "risk" is to get a lot of "golden parachute" money to leave earlier than their contract says, as a maximum penalty. If there us actual money to pay the company or insurance does it for them.
.
The human network of processes, laws, culture, knowledge established over millennia, which enables those CEOs to be at the top of such valuable companies in the first place was built by billions over time. Those CEOs are not bette than others, or people of the past, they are the same humans. That they now move billions instead of having a small stone axe business for the local tribes is not of their making. They were lucky.
If you want to see someone really earning the hundred million with their own hard work, place them in the middle of nowhere, and with no access to the global human network that they did nothing whatsoever to construct because it was already there.
The value that CEOs and others grab for themselves is not of their making. They are able to have such huge businesses only because a human network in space (the current one) and time (handed forward over time, knowledge and processes and tools). They "deserve" the millions just as much as everybody else. They misuse their superior position in the network, since they sit in places where lots of value not of their own making is going through.
In addition to that, in many important cases they managed to catch all the upside, but let all the failures fall through to be caught be everybody else.
I have nothing whatsoever against true entrepreneurs. I know a few personally! But as you reach the billions, and the top management (instead of direct owners who actually suffer when the company fails to deliver), the justification for the incomes gets more tenuous IMO.
That is one of my big issues with the "Left" - here in Germany their new program includes getting rid of billionaires. It's too simple and too one-dimensional. The diversity of people in such high-value positions is huge, and there are many more dimensions! The left treat it like a one-dimensional scale, starting with a normal person that has a few dollars or Euros, and on that scale and idea of "money" they remain with their arguments. Instead, we have to look at the many many different things all that money actually stands for.
CEO income with their usually much reduced risk compared to owners should not be treated the same, for example and IMHO.
They output 100x more "people wanting to pay them money", that's why they are paid 100x. The same reason an American computer programmer is paid 100x more than an African coal miner in spite of doing much less work.
kibwen|1 year ago
BeetleB|1 year ago
barbazoo|1 year ago
nosianu|1 year ago
There "risk" is to get a lot of "golden parachute" money to leave earlier than their contract says, as a maximum penalty. If there us actual money to pay the company or insurance does it for them.
.
The human network of processes, laws, culture, knowledge established over millennia, which enables those CEOs to be at the top of such valuable companies in the first place was built by billions over time. Those CEOs are not bette than others, or people of the past, they are the same humans. That they now move billions instead of having a small stone axe business for the local tribes is not of their making. They were lucky.
If you want to see someone really earning the hundred million with their own hard work, place them in the middle of nowhere, and with no access to the global human network that they did nothing whatsoever to construct because it was already there.
The value that CEOs and others grab for themselves is not of their making. They are able to have such huge businesses only because a human network in space (the current one) and time (handed forward over time, knowledge and processes and tools). They "deserve" the millions just as much as everybody else. They misuse their superior position in the network, since they sit in places where lots of value not of their own making is going through.
In addition to that, in many important cases they managed to catch all the upside, but let all the failures fall through to be caught be everybody else.
I have nothing whatsoever against true entrepreneurs. I know a few personally! But as you reach the billions, and the top management (instead of direct owners who actually suffer when the company fails to deliver), the justification for the incomes gets more tenuous IMO.
That is one of my big issues with the "Left" - here in Germany their new program includes getting rid of billionaires. It's too simple and too one-dimensional. The diversity of people in such high-value positions is huge, and there are many more dimensions! The left treat it like a one-dimensional scale, starting with a normal person that has a few dollars or Euros, and on that scale and idea of "money" they remain with their arguments. Instead, we have to look at the many many different things all that money actually stands for.
CEO income with their usually much reduced risk compared to owners should not be treated the same, for example and IMHO.
logicchains|1 year ago