When Did Things Go To Pot?

[dps]

According status to others is synonymous with envy.

I certainly don't agree with that.  According status to others is synonymous with respect.  But then I don't judge a person's status by their wealth or material possessions.

[The Minsky Moment]

It irritates me when CEOs get that kind of money because I know that you could get a bunch of guys who could do that job for 1/10 the salary.

Also (and this is related) because the process by which that compensation is set does not inspire much confidence.

[Eddie Teach]

According status to others is synonymous with envy.

I certainly don't agree with that.  According status to others is synonymous with respect.  But then I don't judge a person's status by their wealth or material possessions.

I think he means the two are irrevocably linked.

[Threviel]

It irritates me when CEOs get that kind of money because I know that you could get a bunch of guys who could do that job for 1/10 the salary.

Also (and this is related) because the process by which that compensation is set does not inspire much confidence.

Could you please elaborate on that?

[Admiral Yi]

I think he means the two are irrevocably linked.

dps had it right.  And that's one of the flaws I see in that (unmade) argument.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It irritates me when CEOs get that kind of money because I know that you could get a bunch of guys who could do that job for 1/10 the salary.

Also (and this is related) because the process by which that compensation is set does not inspire much confidence.

The Economist looked into this a few years back, for the CEOs of FTSE-350 companies iirc. Their conclusion was that, in general, there was no risk of them being poached by international rivals if their pay was greatly reduced as they were mainly mediocrities. They also pointed out that remuneration committees consisted of exactly the same sort of people as the CEOs and very senior management and therefore had an inflated idea of the value of a mediocre board-level manager. OTOH the high pay gets normalised, even if one is not particularly greedy, there is a problem with accepting a low-ball offer as you will be judged by your peers and found wanting.

I reiterate that this is the Economist that said this, not the Morning Star ( https://morningstaronline.co.uk/ ).

[Eddie Teach]

I think he means the two are irrevocably linked.

dps had it right.  And that's one of the flaws I see in that (unmade) argument.

"Status can't exist without envy." This sounds reasonable. But they are still terms for different things, not synonymous. I don't think respect and status are necessarily synonymous either.

[Syt]

Well, at least there's still some corporate professions that receive pay commensurate to their work.

[ulmont]

1973.

[Berkut]

1973.

And that gap, under the current straight up capitalist/free market/supremacy of capital system will keep getting larger. It is 100% inevitable given technology and where it is going. There is no market "fix" for that - indeed, the standard free market system sees that gap as a feature, not a problem.

[Grey Fox]

I don't know what "Go to Pot" means but Everything went to shit on September 10 2008.

[The Minsky Moment]

It irritates me when CEOs get that kind of money because I know that you could get a bunch of guys who could do that job for 1/10 the salary.

Also (and this is related) because the process by which that compensation is set does not inspire much confidence.

Could you please elaborate on that?

CEO compensation and employment terms are set by boards of directors that are often picked by, beholden to, or have other reasons to be friendly to the CEO. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't know what "Go to Pot" means

John Beohner does.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know what "Go to Pot" means

John Beohner does.

"Buy my Pot" is different 

[FunkMonk]

I don't know what "Go to Pot" means

John Beohner does.

He's sitting in his smoking chair laughing all day every day.