zlacker

> It’s quite a civilized system and I think the law ought to leave it alone, (..)

Or codify it. Imho the better alternative. One should never assume that companies won't try to change the system to the detriment of the employee if they see a chance.

>>sgift+(OP)
One thing I think is great about the finance industry is that the CEOs don’t pretend that humanity is split into two subspecies: executives and peons.

At other companies CEOs secure themselves giant equity packages to “retain the best talent and align shareholder interests” and then think they can motivate rank and file employees with t-shirts, “the mission,” and shoutouts during all hands.

In finance, CEOs acknowledge that everyone is there for the same reason—executives and regular employees alike. The numbers are definitely smaller but bonuses are bonuses and not employee of the month mugs.

>>bradle+b1
To be honest, I find this really refreshing in a - to me - weird way, cause at least no one lies to themselves or the other. It reminds me of what people say about Oracle, that it only has one goal: To make money. No bullshit about mission or whatever. Why are we at Oracle? To make money. The end.

Maybe if more companies and their executives were so open with what they want (and maybe I'm cynical, but imho it is the only thing at least 99% of them want) things would be better.

>>sgift+S1
Mark Fisher had an interesting comment on this, and this is more in the context of public/privatization but the point is relevant, calling it “market stalinism”. In Stalin era Russia, bureaucrats spent enormous amounts of time compiling reports and window dressing for their project (essentially advertising its success back to the Party before it was complete). As a result, projects would be well known but mismanaged, slow, broken, etc. but the glory of USSR would definitely be upheld. I’m always reminded of this when executives get on stage and do the Steve Jobs thing about how great we are for working nights and weekends for the “mission” while only they have a vested interest in us making a profit.

>>sgift+S1
If you (or others) haven't seen it you owe it to yourself to see the "Larry Ellison lawnmower" talk: https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?si=SMpYPck-EJqe1uEv&t=35m00s

>>avar+Yc
It's where I partially got it from - but thanks for the link. The whole conversation just reminded me of it.

>>bradle+b1
If you operate in a zero-sum game, like most trading in financial markets, there is no way you can pretend you are contributing to society. There is literally nothing else but the money that could be the goal of the organization. This does not mean that all organizations make no contribution to society. Nobody works at MSF, for example, just for the money.

>>noelwe+lL
Sure. But a for-profit startup developing AI on a blockchain for pet social media is not MSF.

Moreover even in MSF if the CEO is being paid based on a compensation consultant’s report of the market rate “in order to attract and retain the best talent to advance our mission” well then everyone else should be paid on the same principle.