Hacker News Reader

Comment by sega_sai | Hacker News Reader

I can certainly understand that maybe the salaries should not be claimed back, for for sure the bonuses must be given under some condition that if the bank/company fails within X years of receiving it, the bonuses should be returned in full, otherwise there is simply no responsibility for carelessness.

View on HN

The counter argument I hear for rational arguments such as yours is that if you want to hire the best CEOs you basically have to give them all the perks and none of the accountability.

It's a zero sum game where the best people go to where they will get paid out no matter what. I think this should change and I think doing it through regulation where all companies are forced to comply will remove the zero sum factor.

The evidence flying in the face of that oft-repeated "argument" is this article where executives literally drove a bank into the ground, despite numerous warnings, and made off like bandits. If you hire on "all the perks and none of the accountability" you're making a gamble on a gambler, and paying upfront like a rube.

Only, the people making C-level hiring decisions are members of an ultra-wealthy elite with C-level positions at one or several other companies, so they're not getting duped. They're on the take.

The idea that CEOs are these super talented individuals is ridiculous. People in high level jobs are often dipshits, and there are plenty of talented people who never get a chance to have a high paying position. People in power use their power to get more money for themselves and their friends; it's got nothing to do with talent or performance. These people rotate in and out of jobs with no accountability.

Well I will volunteer for the selfless job of being a well paid bank CEO.

I’m ahem smart and capable. And I will volunteer to pay back my $200M/yr bonus over the previous 3 years if my bank fails.

Honestly, I don’t think you’re right. The best people go where they have the best upside and impact. The sleaziest go where they have the least accountability. That’s true in any profession- I know plenty of SWEs and managers who build a fragile system and job hop before the maintenance starts.

So how come the companies that failed due to mismanagement also paid their CEOs so much? There does not seem to be a direct correlation between company success and C-suite rewards.

I really don't see much leadership from C-Level execs at big companies. Frankly, none of them seem to be worth the millions of dollars in compensation they demand. Frankly when you look at Meta's blunders, you can make the case most big tech companies would be better run if they were democratically led with the workers voting on which strategic initiatives to run like a coop.

> most big tech companies would be better run if they were democratically led with the workers voting on which strategic initiatives to run like a coop

Better for who? Workers? Investors? Users?

For some reason we don't see big tech coops at the size of Meta, yet nothing prevents them from existing. Any chance that it's the nature of coop itself that inhibits growth?

> if you want to hire the best CEOs

It hasn't really worked so far.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com