Hacker News Reader

Comment by kinkrtyavimoodh | Hacker News Reader

I imagine it's a little difficult to compare the two because there is a difference in bargaining power between a regular employee (who is closer to a commodity) and a CEO candidate (for which the applicant pool is much smaller, and company fit very important).

Secondly, a CEO, being the head of the company, could technically be held 'accountable' for hundreds of millions of dollars, and it'd be reasonable for someone to want to shield themselves from such a liability, which might not necessarily arise out of a violation of their own, but rather of the company.

View on HN

In government, C-level people make less than $200k, usually a lot less, yet seem to be able to competently lead organizations consisting of tens of thousands of people. One commissioner of a multi-billion dollar agency that I knew drove a late 90s Accord a few years ago.

They are also subject to invasive and strict ethics and disclosure rules revolving door policies.

CEOs mint money because of social connections, not value to the business. The board members who implicitly endorse graft should themselves be subject to criminal sanction.

> CEOs mint money because of social connections, not value to the business.

Sure, the CEOs are themselves often on the boards of other corporations. The incestuous nature of this top level is bordering on the absurd.

"competently"

Maybe if we started hiring "regular" people for CEO, companies could spend the excess compensation on other employees so we can keep the good ones around and stop the nickel & diming that leads to a man getting beaten for riding is his paid-for airplane seat.

United's CEO was paid $19m last year (per Morningstar). United has 86000 employees. That works out to $220 per employee over the course of the year, or about $10 per paycheck (gross).

If you dumped all the executives, the raise amounts to $30/paycheck. Do you think $600/year is the difference between good employees and those that let men get beaten?

Morningstar's free summary doesn't break down cash vs. equity. The latter is mainly being paid by shareholders and wouldn't represent cash that was available to distribute to employees. Therefore it is highly likely that the "windfall" of a regular Joe CEO would be much less than I have noted here.

You could hire a few teams of incredibly skilled people for that though.

At that point normal teams will balance out the results of incredibly skilled teams.

But won't balance out the CEO?

Isn't there a large org chart of not-quite $19MM earners to account for, too? It's not like everybody makes $200K until being made CEO.

At the low end of wages I think 600 a year would alleviate enough stress to show an improvement in employee behavior. People don't usually wake up thinking they'll half ass their job or make a poor decision that day, but when you are dealing with the stress of paying rent or putting food on the table it just pushes you that much closer to cracking

It's not about bargaining power, it's about even considering them for the job. Wouldn't you think they were telling you they're probably going to turn out to be more trouble than they're worth? I'm pretty sure that's what conventional wisdom says is the correct response.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com