[no_wizard]

It’s fine if someone doesn’t believe that executives should not be held to additional high consequence standard, but you’re boiling down this argument without addressing the central element at play which is viability and wealth gap.

Now, you can absolutely hold a different position here, that’s okay, I’m fine with that, but at least address it head on.

Consider the fact that those getting laid off have disproportionate negative affects compared to what executives face for making terrible decisions in the first place. Jack still keeps his aspen home and whatever wealth he’s extracted out of the company. So he faces no real downside here. He could run block into the ground and still have more money than he would know what to do with.

You’re arguing about shares of paper entitling people to do things to other people’s lives without facing much actual consequence in their personal lives.

Not to mention professional, I’ve watched executives jump from company to company doing terrible things and they still keep getting hired.

Where as the average person is often advised to reduce or obfuscate the fact they were laid off less there be discrimination.

Now you can argue that executives shouldn’t face higher consequences in exchange for wielding such immense power over the lives of those which they employ, I ask that you say it plain, don’t hide behind feigned guise of people who live in a world where they don’t have a choice but to work for corporations or not have a roof over their head and basic needs met.

It’s fine if you want to defend that, but don’t act like people are just making a deliberate choice. This is a choice society has made for them and the wealthiest perpetuate

[csallen]

To me what you're upset about basically sounds like, "People who have more money/power/etc have it easier than those who don't."

Yes, yes, they do. So what?

All else being equal, greater wealth generally brings greater ease and comfort. A billionaire’s life is easier than a millionaire’s, a millionaire’s life is easier than being a middle-class Westerner, middle class living is easier than living below the poverty line, living below the poverty line in a wealthy country is easier than being poor in a developing country, and being poor in a developing country is easier than surviving as a subsistence farmer or living without shelter at all.

All else being equal, if you're a majority owner in a company, you're going to get away with a lot more than if you are a smaller owner, or a non-owner, or an employee, or a customer. All else being equal, if you're a general in the military, you're going to have more power and more leeway than if you're a lieutenant or a private.

Etc etc.

I fail to see what is wrong with this.

[card_zero]

Potentially, universal human rights is what's wrong with it. Much depends on what "get away with" and "leeway" actually mean. There's a difference between owning a jacuzzi and owning a high court judge. Between these there's a gray area of things people vaguely disapprove of, and sometimes it turns out that they're decided to be illegal.