Regarding Work Ethic: CEO vs Worker

[Infected Mushroom]

Of course the CEO is going to get paid more if their work/talents are more valuable than someone lower ranked. People get paid what they're worth or how much people are willing to pay them, not on how many hours they work or how much physical labor they have to do.

In the end, the employer they work for doesn't give a damn about them if they're a nobody and the company is above a certain size in terms of scale. They're easily replaceable up until they prove to be indispensible to the business or workplace they're at. To get better pay, someone has to have leverage or influence, if not skills/talents that're considered valuable to the wider economy.

What about CEOs who raise because you’ve been loyal to the company?

[The Black Forrest]

CEO’s being people come in all shapes and skills. Some really good, the majority are ok and some should be black listed.

My wifes CEO is a very dynamic passionate driven man. Just listening to him talk makes you want to excel. The extra value? He rewards. He cares.

Just having the CEO title isn’t a mark of something irreplaceable. If he is; he isn’t doing his job.

CEO and workers are a symbiotic relationship. If you have a bad workforce, it doesn’t matter the skill of the CEO. If he cleans house, the company get s a reputation for turnover......

Anyway......

[Page]

There are certainly some CEO's who are hard workers, there are rich people who get shit done, absolutely. But even so, who cares? Hard work is not intrinsically virtuous. What matters is the utility yielded from the labor. The good or service is what it is whether it took 30 minutes or 30 hours to produce it, whether the work was relaxing or stressful.

My first job ever was on a janitorial staff at a private school during the summer when I was a teenager, the guys there conveyed their work smart not hard approach on day one. The shredded tires need to be strewn on the playground, the textbooks need to be moved from storage, the light fixtures need to be cleaned - maybe it takes an hour, maybe it takes 4, maybe you're sore and sweaty and sunburned after, maybe not - what matters is that it's done.

And some things can and should be half-assed. If you're a NASA engineer or a surgeon, then no. But my call center job, half the time I didn't do notes like I was supposed to if it was a call where there was no reason to think the customer would call back with a problem. Some things are lower priority. For example, there is a difference between clean and neat. Clean is important, especially in these times, it has tangible hygiene benefits, neat is simply aesthetic.

The path of least resistance isn't a moral failing. We evolved to choose the path of least resistance. If our brains were wired to always prefer hard work, we would have gone extinct. "Come on, you're really just going to hunt that easy to catch turtle on the ground rather than chase a deer for the next 8 hours, where's your work ethic?" said the caveman who starved to death because he energy expenditure exceeded his intake.

[Saiwania]

What about CEOs who raise because you’ve been loyal to the company?

It almost never happens from what I've read or seen. The people who're hired as CEOs have advanced business degrees (4 years or better) or have previous experience at managing or running major and established companies, if not have began their own startup before.

Loyalty is a sucker's game, or at least it is in the US. Corporations generally don't care about their low ranked workers, never have- because it is usually easy enough to find other people who can be hired if there is high turnover, and will pay someone as little as possible if outsourcing or automation can't be done for the jobs in question. Corporations have no hesitation in firing people that they have no further uses for. That is just how it is.

The pay statistics seem to indicate that those who stay at a single company/employer for too long, get paid less than the people who're willing to switch companies. There are more opportunities to negotiate pay upwards than if someone just stays put, as opposed to only ever getting pay increases from inflation. Someone's resume is also usually perceived as stronger or more appealing if they worked at a different company within their industry every 5 years or so, than if they can only list 1 or a few employers.

[Tsarus 2142]

The CEO is more passionate, and is motivated to work harder, yet his life is fulfilling.

The worker's sacrifice is significantly greater. While the CEO's occupation is literally his meaningful life, simultaneously making millions or billions, the worker is simply wasting 8 hours of his life for 5 days a week, only to partake in various activities which mmmm make this dull, monotonous, HELLISH life a bit enjoyable.

The worker's life is utterly humiliating.

I want to go off on a tangent about industrialism, but I will restrain myself.

The CEO is lazier, but tries to justify their exploitation of the masses by lying to the public and sometimes themselves about how they earned it through hard work. I'm gonna call their bluff and say they're delusional if they think they're that dedicated.


The worker, on the other hand, is pretty accurate to what you said.

The CEO exploitation idea has existed since the creation of agriculture. If you're to consider "exploitation" immoral, then so is this relatively new way of life (agriculture).
I agree, the agrarian system sucks, but you really can only end this system by deconstructing civilization, stop using factories and industrial infrastructure etc., and embrace the inevitable collapse. Progress is not worthwhile lest we further widespread suffering and embrace weakness.

[Aspistan]

Whether or not the CEO works hard (only a few do, most make enough money to hire people to do their jobs for them) doesn't matter. The origin of the CEOs wealth is in paying the worker less than their labor is worth; this is necessary for the CEO to make profit.

[Aspistan]

The CEO is lazier, but tries to justify their exploitation of the masses by lying to the public and sometimes themselves about how they earned it through hard work. I'm gonna call their bluff and say they're delusional if they think they're that dedicated.


The worker, on the other hand, is pretty accurate to what you said.

The CEO exploitation idea has existed since the creation of agriculture. If you're to consider "exploitation" immoral, then so is this relatively new way of life (agriculture).
I agree, the agrarian system sucks, but you really can only end this system by deconstructing civilization, stop using factories and industrial infrastructure etc., and embrace the inevitable collapse. Progress is not worthwhile lest we further widespread suffering and embrace weakness.

I completely disagree. The separation of ownership (aka taking the profits from) from administration, and the placing of profits in a common fund, would end class exploitation.

[The Black Forrest]

What about CEOs who raise because you’ve been loyal to the company?

It almost never happens from what I've read or seen. The people who're hired as CEOs have advanced business degrees (4 years or better) or have previous experience at managing or running major and established companies, if not have began their own startup before.

It happens more then you think. Friends and family in places they don’t belong. Every now and then such people turned out to do a decent job. However, the majority......

Loyalty is a sucker's game, or at least it is in the US. Corporations generally don't care about their low ranked workers, never have- because it is usually easy enough to find other people who can be hired if there is high turnover, and will pay someone as little as possible if outsourcing or automation can't be done for the jobs in question. Corporations have no hesitation in firing people that they have no further uses for. That is just how it is.

Except managment. The only time you seem them go is they have royally screwed up and the company can’t hide or ignore it. After that? Loyalty as a worker is a wasted effort. What is fascinating are companies who complain about the loyalty of workers. Nine times out of ten they offered none and are stunned to see people who they don’t want to leave; take off.

The pay statistics seem to indicate that those who stay at a single company/employer for too long, get paid less than the people who're willing to switch companies. There are more opportunities to negotiate pay upwards than if someone just stays put, as opposed to only ever getting pay increases from inflation. Someone's resume is also usually perceived as stronger or more appealing if they worked at a different company within their industry every 5 years or so, than if they can only list 1 or a few employers.

Some times those are acquired employees. That is the companies “ethics”. Example; my last company I was acquired. I had a tiny block of under water stock. Annoying and yet not enough to get upset about. The new company could have traded me for their stock which would have not been much. Still it would have been a cool move which was nothing for them and still more for me. That would be a great welcome act. So what did they do instead? “Let’s give him a block of underwater stock in the new company!!!!!!! SCORE!!!!! The exec who handled acquisitions bragged about all the money he saved getting us. Not exactly a message to send to the nobodies.

Anyway, that stock sat for 4 years and not once did it pass the level they set. They couldn’t understand why I let it expire. Ah hello why would I pay $90 a share to get a sock valued at $55?

Many executives are extremely over paid for what they really offer.

[Roegerland]

Both, because i'm not a fucking rabid communist.