If your leadership is 1% better than your competitor, that could be the threshold needed to wipe your competitor out of the market, increasing company profit margins by hundreds of percent.
To draw a parallel, think about school grades. Going from 60 to 70% is insignificant. Going from 70 to 80% is a little more interesting. But going from 96 to 97? That has significantly more meaning than 66 to 67.
Those end numbers matter. A CEO being a tiny bit better has a huge impact.
Fixing the CEOs pay isn’t going to do anything for a plethora of reasons. Late stage capitalism is simply a failure and it shows.
Yea so we agree here. That’s where a good CEO picking good leadership comes in, and why it’s so essential and worthwhile to pay for one that can do that
I suspect rich influential people of actively keeping “their inner circle” small so that “access to influential people” is such a scarce valuable resource that they can then sell at exorbitant prices (salaries) to companies.
If your leadership is 1% better than your competitor, that could be the threshold needed to wipe your competitor out of the market, increasing company profit margins by hundreds of percent.
To draw a parallel, think about school grades. Going from 60 to 70% is insignificant. Going from 70 to 80% is a little more interesting. But going from 96 to 97? That has significantly more meaning than 66 to 67.
Those end numbers matter. A CEO being a tiny bit better has a huge impact.
Fixing the CEOs pay isn’t going to do anything for a plethora of reasons. Late stage capitalism is simply a failure and it shows.
deleted by creator
Yea so we agree here. That’s where a good CEO picking good leadership comes in, and why it’s so essential and worthwhile to pay for one that can do that
I suspect rich influential people of actively keeping “their inner circle” small so that “access to influential people” is such a scarce valuable resource that they can then sell at exorbitant prices (salaries) to companies.