• dragontamer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A good example of the ignorance of the masses and the left

    The Board of Directors selects (and pays) the CEO.

    • el_muerte@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s meaningless pedantry that doesn’t contribute to the discussion or alter the message in any way, but go ahead and give yourself a pat on the back for showing everyone how very, very smart you are.

      • dragontamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The board of directors removes the obvious corruption argument.

        And shareholders select the board of directors anyway, so if shareholders agree to new terms of values then CEOs can and will be fired.

        I’m looking at Intel for example and how they mistreated Pat Gelsinger and fired him despite being a technical leader. And the new incoming CEO is Lip-Bu Tan, who is a non-technical finance bro who is worse. Why did the shareholders (and board of directors) prefer Lip-Bu Tan?

        There is a large scale hero worship bro culture that’s at the root of all the problems here, a culture that millions of shareholders have which is then passed to the Board of Directors and finally the C-suite that the Board hires.

        But no. Let make shitty memes that misunderstand the power dynamics and perpetuates misinformation. That will help your argument lol.


        EDIT and that doesn’t even get to say, all the CEOs who take a $1/year paycheck just to prove you wrong. The problem here is hero worship cult culture. The pay and salaries are a distraction and easily avoided with various simple political / Public Relations moves.

        • mmddmm@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The board of directors removes the obvious corruption argument.

          Hum… Not exactly, but it does shift the burden.

    • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I really don’t see how that makes much of a difference. The CEOs can just leave if the board doesn’t pay them what they want. And since the boards want them specifically as CEOs, they end up paying what the CEOs are asking for. So the CEOs are paying themselves with some extra steps. Or am I missing something?

      • dragontamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s literally the same power you have at work. Just leave work if you don’t like your paycheck.

        Do you see how stupid that argument sounds now?

        • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think its quite a different thing for someone who has a net worth in the millions. It’s not the same at all for someone living paycheck to paycheck.

          • dragontamer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly, except in reverse.

            If you want to attract the talent of someone who has networth in the millions+++, you need to pay them more.

            The form of your argument and where you are going with the discussion is very short sighted. This isn’t a path to any actual winning argument. I suggest you start elsewhere.

            This is the problem with shitty memes. They poison your brain and make you dumb. If you actually want to make a reasonable argument throw this topic away and start anew.

            It’s not you who is wrong. It’s this meme. It’s just a terrible starting place for discussion and is innately to your disadvantage.