[VoodooJuJu]

>Aren’t CEOs paid ludicrously well to make long term decisions, rather than just flail around?

CEO's are neither prophets nor oracles. They are effectively dice-rolls with a face. Not rollers, but rolls. No matter what, sometimes you get bad numbers.

Founder CEO's like Lutke are heroes. They have skin in the game. This forces them to calculate their risks. Their actions and decisions have greater weight because of this - their payday is not guaranteed, especially early on in the game.

Non-founder CEO's are rent-collectors. They have no skin in the game. Unlimited upside and no downside. They get a handsome payday no matter what.

Non-founder CEO's and the absence of skin in the game is what yields the bastardy that is modern corporatism: highly-paid people who can flail around all they want and still land on their feet.

In this case, Lutke made a bad bet, but with Shopify's success, he's at the point where the result of his bets have no impact on him. He already got his payday.

[ink_13]

Lutke's not a hero, he's a mini-Zuckerberg: he still runs the company he founded as CEO, but he has already made more than enough money to comfortably retire. Also like Zuckerberg, his company might be better off without him at this point, since being practically unaffected by success or failure makes continuing as CEO something of a vanity project.

[idopmstuff]

Virtually anybody else who they'd hire as a CEO would also have more than enough money to comfortably retire. Lutke has more reputation/passion/history/identity tied up in the company than anyone else would - where money isn't a driving factor, deep connection to the thing you're working on is probably the most important motivation.

[ink_13]

Lutke and Zuckerberg are billionaires. It is literally impossible for them to run out of money. Their grandchildren's grandchildren will be born incomprehensibly wealthy. They have won at capitalism.

But they also captain their first large enterprises: do they know what they're doing? Can they transition these firms into businesses that will endure? Or will they capriciously chase shiny objects while they waste the trust and goodwill of investors, the people who work there now, and the people who will want to work there in the future? They might have seeded the garden, but it took thousands of smart people to build it up, and it takes a constant supply to maintain it.

A new CEO will probably be rich, sure, but not "endow a historical dynasty" rich, and might know how to take a successful company and reposition it for the long term. Maybe the younger guys can do it. But it would just be for vanity at this point.

[pcthrowaway]

> It is literally impossible for them to run out of money

Musk has reminded me that even billionaires are one accidentally legally binding agreement away from pissing away $40B

[ink_13]

But he's still a billionaire!

There is no tangible difference between being worth $1B and $100B beyond social cachet. It is impossible to spend meaningful money at that level.

[pcthrowaway]

Sure, but if a billionaire can piss away 40B during an ego trip (which I imagine billionaires are susceptible to), most billionaires would no longer be solvent after making such a mistake

[jacques_chester]

Tobi took a shitton of skin out of the game when the price was high. And he has a golden share, he can't be replaced, so there's no way for a board to discipline him or fire him. I wouldn't call that skin in the game. He owns the game.

[lazyasciiart]

So he is actually in the same position as a non-founder CEO at this point.

[jonny_eh]

> CEO's are neither prophets nor oracles

Then why are they compensated like they're gods?

[VoodooJuJu]

It's one big club, and you're not in it.

[jonny_eh]

I don't want to be in any club that would have me.