[lijok]

No, I think we have a similar definition of luck, but I think you’ve succumbed to a defeatist attitude. You have to be pretty unlucky to be permanently locked out of becoming a CEO, and if you’re dealt those cards, moaning about it on an online forum would be way down in your list of priorities.

[ceejayoz]

> You have to be pretty unlucky to be permanently locked out of becoming a CEO…

Sure, but that's not what's being asserted. I am not "permanently locked out" of megacorp CEO roles; I'm just vanishingly unlikely to get one.

There are lots of people who have enough singing/dancing skill to be a mega popstar like Taylor Swift. There just aren't enough slots.

Could I become the next Steve Jobs? Maybe! I'd have to get really lucky.

[lijok]

Then why were you bringing up conditions of ones birth?

Vanishingly unlikely to get one if you try, or vanishingly unlikely to get one if you sit on your ass all day?

I assume you’re talking about the former and yet I don’t think you’ve thought this through. I think you’ve blindly attributed to luck what actually requires time, perseverance, grit, lack of morality. The only way to figure that out is for you to offer up your understanding of what one must luck out on?

[ceejayoz]

> Then why were you bringing up conditions of ones birth?

Because they're a form of luck?

If you're born in the developed world, that's luck. If you're born to supportive parents, that's luck. If you're Steve Jobs and you wind up high school buddies with Woz in Mountain View, CA, that's luck. White? Luck. Male? Luck. Healthy? Luck. A light touching of psychopathy? Luck!

> Vanishingly unlikely to get one if you try, or vanishingly unlikely to get one if you sit on your ass all day?

Both.

> I think you’ve blindly attributed to luck what actually requires time, perseverance, grit, lack of morality.

There are many, many people who devote time, perserverance, and grit to their endeavours without becoming a "hugely expensive" CEO. Hence, luck. Is it the only thing? No. Is it a thing? Yes, absolutely.

[lijok]

None of what you’ve mentioned is a requirement to become a “hugely expensive” CEO. If you’re born into conditions which stop you from becoming self reliant, that’s a different story but we covered that.

Those people who devote time - do they devote time to becoming a hugely expensive CEO or just some “endeavours”?

I think we’re fundamentally disagreeing on whether or not lack of luck can be adequately compensated for by exerting more effort. I have not yet heard of a compelling argument for why that’s not the case.

[ceejayoz]

> None of what you’ve mentioned is a requirement to become a “hugely expensive” CEO.

Again, no one said they're requirements. Just significant factors. You don't have to be white, you don't have to be male, you don't have to be from the developed world… but you do have to have some substantially lucky breaks somewhere.

A quadriplegic orphan of the Gaza War might become the next Elon Musk. But the odds are stacked heavily against them.

[meheleventyone]

God save us from grindset influencers who pedal all this ‘if you didn’t succeed it was down to you not trying hard enough’ m’larky. In some respects I appreciate the call to taking agency but the fact it results in people being unable to acknowledge the sheer extent of external factors in the world is crazy.

[satvikpendem]

No one said anything about megacorps though, just CEOs.

[ceejayoz]

No one except the article we're all (theoretically) discussing, titled "CEOs are hugely expensive", citing "the boards of BAE Systems, AstraZeneca, Glencore, Flutter Entertainment and the London Stock Exchange" as examples in the introductory paragraph.

[satvikpendem]

Now read the rest of the article. It talks about CEOs in general, not just megacorp ones, even if it does use megacorp CEOs in the intro. It is asking a general question of whether the role of a CEO should be automated. Articles often start with a hook that is related but does not wholly encompass the entirety of the point of the article.

[ceejayoz]

> Now read the rest of the article.

I did.

> It talks about CEOs in general, not just megacorp ones, even if it does use megacorp CEOs in the intro.

This does not accurately describe the article.

[satvikpendem]

Well if we're deriving different conclusions from the same article, then there is probably not much else to talk about.