Hacker News Reader

Comment by skyyler | Hacker News Reader

Well that's simple, larger companies that want to pay their CEO more can pay their lowest paid employees more.

That's moronic. A good CEO at a fortune 500 company could have a $100M revenue impact. That same CEO could never be worth $100M to a local restaurant. The idea that the bigger company can't offer more to attract a better CEO just because both businesses employ janitors that make market rate is mind-numbingly stupid.

I thought janitoring was all contracted out these days.

But the fortune 500 company can offer more for its CEO. It just has to pay its janitor more. Which it totally can, being a fortune 500 company.

If they can afford to pay the CEO 100M they can afford to pay above market rate to the janitors, no?

Do you have arguments or are you just going to call someone a “doo-doo head”?

Business's exist to make money, not give it away.

Fascinating.

So why are we entertaining 100M salaries? That sounds like giving away money.

The board of directors believes the CEO adds more shareholder value than they cost.

That's so fascinating.

The janitors don't?

They certainly dont add $100 million of value. Probably add at least as much as they're paid but that's not saying much

How do you come to that conclusion?

The cleanliness of an office space is a gigantic force multiplier for productivity. I wouldn't be surprised if janitors had a bigger impact.

value is about opportunity cost. If anyone off the street could replace you your value is the lowest amount a competent person would demand on the market.

Do you really think anyone off the street could be a top-performing janitor?

I guarantee you California will find a way to legislate this view into existence within the next year, with horrendous results.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com