re: #246 EPR-radar

Here’s an interesting bit of arithmetic. A fairly typical executive compensation in a US BigCorp is $10M per year. It’s actually a bit on the low side for CEOs, but the number used makes the math easier.

At 2000 hours in the working year, this works out to $5,000/hour. I can honestly see no justification for this kind of compensation from an organization, especially on a year after year basis.

If someone wants to earn that kind of money, they should face the free market directly. An artist who takes a hour to make something that sells for $5K legitimately earns that. If this person is so productive and talented that they can do it 2000 times in a year and score the full $10 million, more power to them.

But we all know executive compensation does not work that way, despite an entire industry of executive compensation consultants that exists to support the idea of compensating executives as if they are creative geniuses.

Not even creative geniuses - at this point, they’re just saying, “Fuck it, this guy runs the company so he should be paid more than the rest of the company.” Not even trying to disguise it anymore because, honestly, creative people don’t get paid as much as they ought to. Hell, people like Drumpf intentionally try to stiff creative people, because why should anyone make money doing something “someone they know” could/would do for free?