|
|
|
|
|
|
by firstOrder
4502 days ago
|
|
|
Absolutely. It starts off talking about Downey, who has been working as an actor since the age of five, studying, honing his craft, and then working for months on a project to make a 142 minute film of which he is on screen much of the time, a project that made $1.5 billion. He then does the bait-and-switch of comparing someone who works to idle class rentier parasite heirs who have never done a day of work in their lives, the kind of people you see in the documentary "Born Rich". |
|
|
I think the real problem with CEO positions is that of bad actors. A certain Nokia CEO would could be a good example. Took nokia from bad into disaster and then sold the company to the "real" people who hired him.
A CEO is something you must have and who is an enormous risk if he's a sellout. So one has to give them a lot of money to try to lessen that incentive. It's that simple. It's the same reason you don't underpay the people with their hands on the nuclear weapons triggers.
As Nokia demonstrated (and it's not the only one), even doing that does not yield guarantees.
The problem is the opposite. Coming from one of Europe's quasi-socialist states, rewarding the "deserving" doesn't work. Firstly because you don't know who is deserving and because government committees, well, are were the term "politics" got it's sour taste. All important positions in the EU, for example, are filled, just like congress, with very rich people. Having consulted from them I personally guarantee they are from the "born rich" variety. Coincidence ? No. And those are effectively the only 2 options.
It's far better to go with the option where (you try to make sure) the incentives for the CEO and the people that want to benefit of him are aligned.