cool, will it do anything about CEOs which earn 100x what a common employee earns, despite not outputting 100x?

Happily, yes. They will now earn 10,000x what a common employee earns while doing less than ever before.

That would be relevant if it was the CEO taking the risk but that is not really true in what feels like the vast majority of cases.

And when that happens, what happens to them?

There "risk" is to get a lot of "golden parachute" money to leave earlier than their contract says, as a maximum penalty. If there us actual money to pay the company or insurance does it for them.

.

The human network of processes, laws, culture, knowledge established over millennia, which enables those CEOs to be at the top of such valuable companies in the first place was built by billions over time. Those CEOs are not bette than others, or people of the past, they are the same humans. That they now move billions instead of having a small stone axe business for the local tribes is not of their making. They were lucky.

If you want to see someone really earning the hundred million with their own hard work, place them in the middle of nowhere, and with no access to the global human network that they did nothing whatsoever to construct because it was already there.

The value that CEOs and others grab for themselves is not of their making. They are able to have such huge businesses only because a human network in space (the current one) and time (handed forward over time, knowledge and processes and tools). They "deserve" the millions just as much as everybody else. They misuse their superior position in the network, since they sit in places where lots of value not of their own making is going through.

In addition to that, in many important cases they managed to catch all the upside, but let all the failures fall through to be caught be everybody else.

I have nothing whatsoever against true entrepreneurs. I know a few personally! But as you reach the billions, and the top management (instead of direct owners who actually suffer when the company fails to deliver), the justification for the incomes gets more tenuous IMO.

That is one of my big issues with the "Left" - here in Germany their new program includes getting rid of billionaires. It's too simple and too one-dimensional. The diversity of people in such high-value positions is huge, and there are many more dimensions! The left treat it like a one-dimensional scale, starting with a normal person that has a few dollars or Euros, and on that scale and idea of "money" they remain with their arguments. Instead, we have to look at the many many different things all that money actually stands for.

CEO income with their usually much reduced risk compared to owners should not be treated the same, for example and IMHO.

They output 100x more "people wanting to pay them money", that's why they are paid 100x. The same reason an American computer programmer is paid 100x more than an African coal miner in spite of doing much less work.

In many countries, lobbying is considered corruption. That it is legalized in the US alone, suggests to me that it actually exists more in the West.

Not Vietnam though...

Alternative title: How to cope with the stranglehold neoliberalism has on us.

> and there's consequence to mismanagemen

Except if you're a company so large that the government has no choice but to bail you out in a crisis.

Won't happen, as corporations themselves control the law.

Cynicism is a great way to ensure that nothing ever happens.

I see it more like:

> Major lobbying companies' shareholders' interest in handling an slow creeping existential threat appears to be very bad.

If we take this argument at face value, disabled people should be shunned too.

Don’t forget the elderly and children

Children are taken care of by their parents, elderly build up equity in society to be taken care of when they no longer are capable of contributing.

Build up equity?

What are you talking about?

Explain to me the felicific calculus for determining grandparent equity in the year 1375

> Apple enacting RTO, one has to wonder whether the author would go so far as to say that Tim Cook is a "bad" CEO who "fears" remote work.

Still, the author isn't saying "A CEO is bad if and only if they hate remote work". Being bad is the premise.

Because otherwise it's communism. Or so those with power to change anything want us to believe.