Comments on: Scaling arguments and CEO compensation

By: Chiao

Chiao — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:59:29 +0000

I’m not worried about cameras stealing my soul either. Should I be?

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:42:51 +0000

I didn’t realize you were talking about “care” in the economic sense and not the human sense ;)

By: Chiao

Chiao — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:15:42 +0000

Stockholders have the right to be unhappy, because they are paying the CEO. It’s really none of the business of other employees. It’s the buyer who decides what price is fair, not bystanders.

There are legitimate reasons for the farmer to be unhappy. The shoemaker/blacksmith is now effectively a cartel, and has more bargaining power because they have guaranteed internal trust. If he uses his blacksmithing monopoly to gain unfair advantage in the shoemaking business, that leads to unnecessary monopoly loss, and falls under anti-trust.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:57:58 +0000

A rational farmer wouldn’t, but a human farmer would care ;)

Also, I assume you were alluding to CEO compensation (in your title). Suppose the CEO’s pay is 100 times that of the average employee, to be “rationally fair” like in the example you gave, the CEO needs to do 100 times more work (whatever the operator “times” means in this case) than the average employee. Is that true? From the point of a disgruntled employee, probably not. From the point of view of the CEO, probably yes.