this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2022
9 points (84.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44656 readers
836 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If your leadership is 1% better than your competitor, that could be the threshold needed to wipe your competitor out of the market, increasing company profit margins by hundreds of percent.
To draw a parallel, think about school grades. Going from 60 to 70% is insignificant. Going from 70 to 80% is a little more interesting. But going from 96 to 97? That has significantly more meaning than 66 to 67.
Those end numbers matter. A CEO being a tiny bit better has a huge impact.
Fixing the CEOs pay isn't going to do anything for a plethora of reasons. Late stage capitalism is simply a failure and it shows.
Yea so we agree here. That's where a good CEO picking good leadership comes in, and why it's so essential and worthwhile to pay for one that can do that
I suspect rich influential people of actively keeping "their inner circle" small so that "access to influential people" is such a scarce valuable resource that they can then sell at exorbitant prices (salaries) to companies.