936
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
936 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
59340 readers
2302 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
don't invest (or gamble) what you can't afford to lose.
using some people's poor money management skills as an excuse to justify exploitation of the source of your windfall is exceptionally stupid.
a receding tide beaches all boats. every time something like this happens, another genius with another big idea sees it and decides it's not worth it if they're just going to get the result stripped away from them by parasitic suits.
His entire argument is literally debunked by Veritaseum's other video about game theory and cooperation. Nobody will be nice to a corporation where everybody knows the board members always will defect against you.
True, and I think he wasn't compensated enough. But giving him hundreds of millions is a bit much as well. If they gave him 8 million at the very start without going to court that would have been a good bonus
It's not one person's retirement. Retirement funds have millions of people's retirement. You can't just give away a company's money because it's not the CEO's money. It's the shareholders' money
He should have been fairly compensated, but again, only up to the point where it encourages workers to work hard
and they exist within a continuum of risk profiles. there are safer (and less potentially profitable) options, and there are riskier (and more potentially profitable) options. they have made this decision.
you cannot pick the riskiest options for your retirement fund and then get mad there was more risk than the safest options and that you lost some of it. you cannot pick the safest options and then get mad it's not performing as well as the riskiest. if you cannot afford to lose your retirement money, do not put it into any fund or mechanism that will gamble with it beyond what you are comfortable with. it is YOUR responsibility. alone.
as a result of your mentality, we will see less and less innovation. people who can improve the world see you and your opinions and decide, well, it's not worth it. what intelligent person would ever work with organizations that you claim are justifiably ethically bound to stab them in the back and reward them the bare minimum possible?
and why, because grandpa ticked the "minimum risk" button in his sofi 401k and is mad he's not getting explosive vc-tech-company-tier returns? or because your uncle ticked the "maximum risk" button and is mad he lost some money? you're catering to the lowest common denominator of uninformed, entitled gamblers and are poisoning the well and breaking the whole system down as a result.
let me guess, you have an MBA?
I don't have an MBA, I'm saying that the CEO can only reward enough bonuses to people so they don't feel like they get stabbed in the back.
This amount might be single digit million USD, like the 8 million awarded in the end. The original bonus was quite insulting. The first amount the court ordered was actually not bad from the court's point of view since the case went to court and there are legal fees, the amount should be higher to discourage companies from screwing their employees
But awarding 200 million to begin with would be overkill. It doesn't accomplish anything other than being a "lottery" payout. Other workers can't expect this much money because it's literally one of those discoveries of a century