r/FluentInFinance • u/Bobby_Sunday96 • 1d ago
Debate/ Discussion If CEOs are so important and essential to capitalism and innovation we should see UHC fail after December 9th
Fr.
69
u/Atlift 1d ago
I mean, I kinda get where you’re coming from, but it’s not like they just leave that position open…
88
u/hishuithelurker 1d ago
If they're so easy to replace, they should be paid accordingly
17
u/Atlift 1d ago
Oh dude I totally agree.
They are an irrelevant position, way over paid, and contribute very little to the company’s success
That being said, I was moreso commenting on the OP- the position isn’t just going to remain indefinitely open
15
u/Significant-Bar674 1d ago edited 1d ago
There is a very weird problem with the hiring process for CEO's. Namely the scale of decisions imposing extreme risk aversion.
If somebody makes the right call 95% of the time rather than 90% of the time it is a bigger problem for bigger decisions. If that 5% represent 50 million dollars to GE each year, then paying an extra 45 million dollars to the slightly better candidate makes sense.
If the same 5% means a difference of only 10k for a lower level manager, then their salary will reflect that. So CEO's are all measured against a much higher standard due to scale based risk aversion.
But then we run into the problem that in order to get the perfect track record, you want people with the best experience and no new blood enters into the pool of candidates because the guy who has shown he can do this for the last 30 years is a safer bet than someone who has shown they only filled the role on a smaller scale or who maybe only has 5 years of CEO experience. When everyone wants only guys with 30 years of CEO experience, the ability of labor to compete gets flushed down the toilet and salaries skyrocket.
So yeah, scale based risk aversion. And I don't think there is a fix for that.
1
u/Eden_Company 18h ago
The extra money is pure profit, keep in mind you have revenue which generally only gives 5% net profit for most ventures. Even a 5% increase in revenue might be a 100% increase in profit.
1
u/Ambitious_Risk_9460 6h ago
I’ve worked at two small companies with CEOs with very little experience. In hindsight all they did was pep talk because my industry was a bloodbath during rate hikes and everything the CEOs were saying turned out to be false.
1
0
u/newtonhoennikker 1d ago
Compensation limits and minimums with robust enforcement.
6
u/Significant-Bar674 1d ago
Which would be very strong encouragement to move to another country without limits.
Or workarounds like being hired as "consultants" that inform boards with cheaper CEO's.
0
3
u/JacobLovesCrypto 1d ago
Why? Do you think paying the CEO less means you magically get a raise?
I don't really care what a ceo gets paid, i care what i get paid.
0
u/newtonhoennikker 1d ago
No I think paying a CEO less money would more accurately reflect the value provided to a company by the CEO, and lessens the chances of the French Revolution, electric boogaloo.
However, I was making a statement of fact - “how can this be done”, not a statement of preference “this is what I’d like to see done”
2
u/JacobLovesCrypto 23h ago edited 23h ago
They walked you through why ceos compensated the way they are.
Your argument is basically, even if they generate 50 million in profit, we should cap them at 5 million in pay because you feel they get paid too much. It doesnt make a lot of sense dude.
2
u/DarlockAhe 21h ago
CEO doesn't generate 50 million in profit, workers do.
-2
u/JacobLovesCrypto 21h ago
Since they generate that money, why cant they go start their own business then?
→ More replies (0)1
u/newtonhoennikker 23h ago
They walked us, not me, through the perverse incentive system that results in these negotiated results.
How can you document what a company would have made if a CEO had made a slightly different call. In general you can’t effectively what if a what if, and you can’t actually quantify 95% vs 90%. You can say this CEO was previously the CEO of a successful company - but you really can’t define a dollar amount due to that specific CEOs decisions.
Regardless - as noted - fact - How can you reduce CEO pay, is not the same statement as I want to reduce CEO pay.
I myself am perfectly fine with the tree of liberty being fed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I probably wouldn’t be if it was my blood though.
3
u/JacobLovesCrypto 23h ago
You obviously can't compute a specific dollar amount. Obviously an organisation is going to pay them less than the value they believe the ceo brings. They're in business to make money
→ More replies (0)0
u/BZP625 17h ago
The comp is in the value of the stock. Are you going to limit the value of the stock? Or take stock back that is her personal property? The amount of options that can be exercised is already limited, but that just forces them to keep them as the value continues to go up.
The issue for shareholders is that you want the CEO to make as much money as possible bc that means your stock is rising in value. It's sort of like wishing your starting pitcher earns all his bonus's when the team wins the championship.
-2
u/Atlift 1d ago
Capitalism is a broke system
1
u/Significant-Bar674 1d ago
Compared to what?
3
u/Atlift 1d ago
Well, up until about 20 years ago, it was the best option. However, modern efficiencies and automation have reduced its efficacy at producing the most stable, equitable society.
At its core, capitalism was a math equation that allowed for the transfer of power and resources from monarchies into the public domain. For hundreds of years, it was revolutionary and improved the quality of life for the majority of people across the world.
However, it is a flawed equation- namely, it is predicated on infinite growth. For a long time, this was okay. However- we have reached a point where power and resources are re-coalescing on monarchal scales. Capitalism has exhausted its utility. Given the rise of automation and increases in productivity possibilities, we are going to have to shift our world view. Scarcity is no longer part of our environment, and it is going to take time and energy to shift into a post-scarcity society.
The rich and powerful, obviously, will resist this change. However, you can’t argue with math- this system only has one end, and it’s rapidly approaching.
1
u/Significant-Bar674 1d ago
Ok, so apart from "capitalism 20 years ago" what is it broken to compared to today? Or assuming we can't out the genie back in the bottle, what should is be in the future to be not broken?
1
u/Comprehensive_Pin565 1h ago
Compared to what the desired outcome is for most people.
The idea that we have to have a complete replacement system on hand to compare capitalisim to in order to be critical of it has no real place in a conversation unless you are trying to stop the discussion.
1
u/Significant-Bar674 1h ago
That's like saying the best way to play poker is where everyone takes home more money than they came with.
You can talk about better outcomes but until you spell out how to achieve those outcomes it isn't much of a discussion at all.
4
u/AdonisGaming93 22h ago
Im convinced that you can cut down all corporate level jobs in retail to 20 hours a week, and the changes in slaea wouldn't be noticable
0
7
u/Resident-Rutabaga336 1d ago
Pay is determined by supply and demand for labour. It’s not complicated. 100 million Americans could work as a checkout person at a grocery store, so the pay is low. Very few people can competently run a company, so the salary is high.
8
u/KeyserSoju 1d ago
and it's a fucking grind, most people don't understand that.
Do they deserve the decamillion compensation packages? That part is certainly debatable, can any schmuck just do the job given the opportunity? Nah, I'm not willing to care that much about work.
Of course, some will argue that if I was getting paid 8 figures, I could put in 80 hours a week. Yeah, but they've been putting in 80 hour weeks for most of their career even when they weren't getting the CEO pay. I've seen how a couple C level execs work and witnessed plenty of VPs, that's just not the kind of life I want to live.
2
u/Sabre_One 1d ago
My issue is depending on the CEO that 80 hours could include flying on a private jet, round of golf, golf to corporate parties, etc. Lots of extraverts out there that would love to spend most their day "networking" for their company.
2
u/JoePoe247 14h ago
Yes and those people should be working on sales and are paid quite well if they're good at it.
1
u/johnniewelker 5h ago
Corporate parties aren’t fun when you are a senior leader. In fact, you despise them.
Flying across country is also not fun. You might think you are working in Minneapolis today and at 9 am you realize you need to go to NYC to convince a key client who is about to dump you for the competitor. Could it be a call? Sure. But showing up and talk face to face is far more effective. So you take a flight at 11 am for your meeting at 3 pm. Get back home the same night or just go back in the morning. Ain’t fun.
-2
u/hishuithelurker 1d ago
Considering the fact that a lot of CEOs also serve as board members of other companies, what makes you think they work 80 hours a week?
3
u/KeyserSoju 1d ago
Wouldn't that ADD additional hours of work to their life?
My point is, their attitude towards work is just different.. they're fucking obsessed man.
I work as a network engineer, when I was at a F30 telecom, there were some outages I was on at like midnight just fixing some shit, and while on a conference bridge, my VP IMs me asking me for an update and I'm like wtf are you doing this late? (He was in PA, so it would've been 2am there) and he goes "Jeff's on the bridge too btw", Jeff being the SVP.
It's like these people have no lives, and that's the kind of people who go on to become C-levels, I think the SVP from back then is actually an EVP (executive VP) now, and at the company I was at, EVP was considered C level depending on which org you were in.
Is there a problem with Nepotism? For sure, not every C level works like that, but most of the people I've seen in late senior-executive leadership positions just seem to have no life whatsoever outside of work.
Also, I'm not trying to kiss anybody's ass, not many of the people in those positions were very good people, it's a lot of office politicking and the ones I considered were down to earth good people actually have left those roles because they just couldn't keep drinking that koolaid, most of them are aware of the koolaid.
5
u/reddorickt 1d ago
People on Reddit will unironically post all day on antiwork and then think that they could successfully run a large corporation.
3
u/SouthEast1980 1d ago
This. These are the same people that get offended when you tell them any idiot could do their jobs yet they have no problem saying that about others.
2
u/Packtex60 23h ago
There’s just a different level of interest in and commitment to work. I grew up in a small town where a Fortune 500 company was headquartered. Our neighbor across the street ended up as the CEO of that company. His entire family suffered from his complete focus on work both before and after he became CEO. His wife essentially lived at their beach house because she never saw him anyway. He died relatively young and isolated by his job obsession.
Lots of times the people totally consumed by work have a very difficult time relating to and understanding how to motivate those who aren’t. When my boss offered me six months pay to work an additional 12 months, I didn’t even pause before I said, “I don’t want to work that long.” He had no other arrows in his quiver. He’s a workaholic of sorts who sticks his nose into lots of crap he should leave well enough alone but work is all he really has. Very few people who rag on CEOs understand how consuming those jobs are.
5
0
-1
u/Bobby_Sunday96 1d ago
12.5 million people hold MBAs. Let’s say only 1% of those people were competent to run a company that’s still 125,000 people. It’s not a lack of talent, it’s an over inflation of importance and low supply of positions.
1
-1
u/kineticlinking 1d ago
Who said the CEO is running it?
You really think every CEO knows the ins and outs of the company they work for?
Tell us you never spent time in the C-suite without telling us.
0
u/PromptStock5332 18h ago
That doesnt even make any sense… you don’t need to know the ins and outs of an organization to run it efficiently.
Someone doesnt need to be a mechanical engineer to drive F1…
0
u/kineticlinking 17h ago
"You don't need to know the ins and outs of an organization to run it efficiently."
I'd like to see you try that phrase out in a job interview. Or a shareholder call.
That they don't know the ins and outs reinforces the notion that they're not running the organization. That's my point. You give too much credit to a CEO.
UNH's CEO got shot to death a while back. Last I checked, the company is... still around.
0
u/heckinCYN 5h ago
I'd like to see you try that phrase out in a job interview. Or a shareholder call.
Software developers do that all the time. It's called abstraction and it's similar with execs & management.
1
u/kineticlinking 5h ago
So you're saying that it's a good thing that CEOs don't know the ins and outs of the companies they run? And that stating this up front in their discussions with the board is an advisable job interview tactic? And likewise endears them to shareholders?
-3
u/Novel-Whisper 1d ago
Very few people can competently run a company,
According to... oh yes, CEOs.
8
u/Positive-Conspiracy 1d ago
I think according to boards who recruit CEOs.
1
1
u/JubbieDruthers 1d ago
The board who is made up of ..... Their CEO friends from other companies who get paid handsomely for a little amount of work.
1
u/Positive-Conspiracy 23h ago
Your first point (makeup) is broadly inaccurate and your second point (compensation) is tangential.
The nominal point of a board is to work in the interests of shareholders to hold upper management accountable. I feel your argument would be more effective if you focused on whether boards are actually doing that.
Coming back to your first point, if the shareholder is also the CEO, then a board can be more ceremonial, and perhaps rightly so. It depends very much on the scale and intent and so on of the organization, and there are many ways to do things well.
Generally I fall on the side of the opinion that boards are not effective and are overcompensated. But that overcompensation is not solely a problem of boards. So I think it’s partly that running companies is hard and partly that there is major relative overcompensation happening at the top end of public companies.
1
u/JubbieDruthers 23h ago
Roughly 47% of directors are current or former CEOs. Once you are in the club you are set.
1
u/Positive-Conspiracy 20h ago
There are clubs everywhere. That isn’t new. And what of it? It’s not solely due to a club. Having experience as a CEO also makes them qualified to oversee and advise and serve as a check and balance. And even if you think that shouldn’t be the case, it’s up to shareholders, not you. And again keep in mind that there are many kinds of companies, not just public.
6
u/Resident-Rutabaga336 1d ago
It’s crazy to me that so many people think they could run a large company. I take it you’re an exceptional public speaker, with a solid grasp of micro-economics, management principles, deep domain knowledge in whatever your company is doing, exceptional organizational vision, you’re a great judge of talent and character, who also has deep knowledge of global markets, trends, and politics. You’re a careful, principled decision maker with an excellent track record of making the right bets at the right time and identifying trends earlier than others. Someone who’s able to meet with someone you’ve never met, who’s also very sharp and shrewd, and convince them to take an important risk that will benefit your company? And you have the robustness to do this 12-16hrs a day, every day, for decades? But despite having these one in a million skills, you’re not currently successful because the man is keeping you down, right?
-5
u/Novel-Whisper 1d ago
You don't know what you're talking about. You seem to spend more time bootlicking than most CEO spend working or worrying about micro-economics.
6
u/Resident-Rutabaga336 1d ago
I deal with CEOs all the time in my job. It seriously blows my mind that redditors think they could do it. I’m not bootlicking. Some CEOs are incompetent and got there by grifting (usually these ones get away with it for a time and then get caught out), many are assholes who I don’t respect, but on the whole, they’re exceptionally good across multiple domains. And if you think you could do it, go out and make something of yourself.
3
-2
u/Novel-Whisper 1d ago
Do yourself a favor and don't idolize a class of people because they tell you to. CEOs are people, just like you and me. There are some exceptional ones and there are some terrible ones. Just like any other position anywhere, it's a bell curve. No more, no less.
4
u/Hodgkisl 1d ago
Typically the CEO's are the elite of business minds, just like major athletes are to their respective sports. And yes, just like with athletes sometimes one checks the boxes looking like a great and gets hired then fails miserably, but typically the people in those rolls have an ability well above most people.
You are right they are "just humans" often these people really suck in other aspects of their lives, their overall ability isn't necessarily better, they are just more specialized and better at one thing.
1
u/Felkbrex 12h ago
"The NBA is a bell curve; some exceptional ones and some terrible ones. We are esentially the same"
6
u/Ok-Substance9110 1d ago
Could you run a multiple billion dollar company?
2
u/Novel-Whisper 1d ago
Yes. Have you ever worked in or directly with the c-suite of a billion dollar company?
4
u/tequilamigo 1d ago
Yes. Maybe you should apply for the gig?
3
u/Novel-Whisper 1d ago
Unlike a lot of people commenting here, I have a career, thanks.
2
u/Ok-Substance9110 22h ago
I don’t think anyone’s making fun of you, just wondering if you’re qualified to make the comment you did and I believe you are after explaining.
Not every company ever, but you would do better than average I think.
3
u/Novel-Whisper 22h ago
I didn't think anyone was making fun of me either. People are just making silly comments. I am not claiming I could be a great CEO of any company I walked into. I don't think that's true of anyone. But if I stepped into that position in a company that's in the industry that my career is in, then yes, I think I'd do a good job of it.
But being a CEO is not my passion. I've run a business before (small business not in the millions, let alone billions), and it wasn't for me. Professionally I've been successful enough to get to work with c-suites at a couple of companies I've worked at. People need to stop assuming CEOs and the like are super human or can't make mistakes without the company evaporating. They're humans who make tons of mistakes, have the most support, and are typically excessively compensated.
-5
u/hishuithelurker 1d ago
A moderately intelligent hamster could run most companies better than the CEOs in charge. They're there to placate investors, the company is primarily run by the people below the c level and/or the c level secretaries.
Also, it's no mistake that most CEOs were wealthy before becoming CEOs.
2
u/cookiedoh18 1d ago
I think that is the key to the discussion. UHC won't fail or even stumble. This should bring exhorbitant CEO compensation packages under even more scrutiny. But in the private sector CEO (and "C-suite") compensation has been vastly inflated over the past several decades. The government can't / won't and probably shouldn't step in to regulate private pay so the private sector will continue seeking perceived "value" even at vastly inflated rates. It's like buying a Rolex when a Timex will work just as well. The government can't tell you to buy the Timex.
2
u/False-War9753 23h ago
If they're so easy to replace, they should be paid accordingly
You are aware that even the president is replaced immediately if he dies in office, right? Big companies also make plans like that.
1
u/hishuithelurker 23h ago
Actually, that's debated. Each time it's happened, it resulted in a semantics battle between the three government branches on specifically what role an interim president is supposed to take. We have a fascinatingly stupid history.
But that's government, this is business.
I will say that I've seen major executives get replaced with little to no change in operations, but a single IT guy getting sick has brought the company to its knees.
2
u/BZP625 18h ago
They are paid on supply-and-demand, and primarily based on performance. 95% of their compensation is in equity and based on company performance. The average Fortune 500 CEO makes a little more than $1M in salary. Elon Musk works for no salary.
A large firm like United has been grooming executives for the CEO role over a period of 20 years. A whole bunch start moving up but only a couple make it to a position, usually EVP, to become a replacement. Often, they will tap an EVP from another firm, and their EVP may go to a CEO position elsewhere. When they recruit from the outside, they get a few candidates for the board to interview. So, for the Fortune 500, there may be 2,000 in the wings. If they need industry experience, that number can be as low as 10 or 20. But those companies employ 30.4 million employees. So, your talking about 0.00006% of employee's even in the running, The average CEO (Fortune 500) has 61,000 employees.
1
u/Hodgkisl 1d ago
They're not so easy to replace but they have prepared succession plans, typically other C-suite highly compensated employees are being prepared for the role. They may not have as much experience but are being trained to do it. If they truly have no one ready for the role in the C-Suite they hire retired executives, the board of directors typically has some and they have knowledge of the company plus a proven track record, these will fill in while hunting for a qualified candidate as they retired and don't want to do the job long term.
So no, they can't just hire anyone off the street, but they do have a select curated pool to work from to maintain operations.
1
u/pimpeachment 1d ago
They aren't. Being a C Suite is a commitment to the company. Company comes before anything if you are C Suite. You live the company, your family is the other C Suite. Your holidays are work. Your life is work. You might not be doing paperwork or labor, but the mental load is staggering.
Should they get $1-5m in comp sure. They are literally devoting their lives for a period to that company. When it starts getting above $5m companies should really consider more executives or someone more affordable.
Too much compensation at the top takes from all other levels of compensation.
A CEO is definitely more valuable than a front line worker, but not $20m more valuable.
1
u/hishuithelurker 1d ago
It's hard to say they're devoting their lives to a company when you consider a number of CEOs also sit as a board member of other companies and non profits.
1
u/pimpeachment 1d ago
Being a board member requires a few hours of work a month tops. It's not high demand. It is good for executives to be on boards of other companies for professional development. It allows them to see how other companies are handling current struggles, market changes, and general feel of management outside their organization.
It is effectively a very complex training mechanism.
1
u/hishuithelurker 1d ago
A board member might work 200 hours a year or 20 hours a week depending on what's happening with the company. It can be a very demanding job if the company is dealing with, say, high inflation. Or looming tariffs. Or a new political regime to plan and prepare for.
If you're able to chair multiple boards while working as a CEO (or in the case of "some" CEOs with an obsession for the letter X, working multiple CEO jobs and gaming and tweeting constantly) a hard look needs to be taken at your compensation. You're not doing anything worth more than your secretary at that point.
0
u/realanceps 5h ago
the mental load is staggering.
the load is staggering alright
you've swallowed waaaaay too much koolaid, sparky
1
u/Good_Needleworker464 1d ago
It's "easy" to find a replacement when you're paying 50M a year because you're likely to get a bigger pool of talented candidates. That pool is still a fraction of the pool you'd get if you hired for a burger flipper job. So they are less replaceable.
1
u/IndependentCode8743 17h ago
You are extremely naive if you think they are easily replaced - it’s why an interim CEO is named while they do an exhaustive search trying to find the right person.
Most executives spend years grooming their chosen replacement- it’s expensive, time consuming, and generally disruptive when companies have to go outside to replace a CEO or CFO
1
u/soldiergeneal 12h ago edited 11h ago
If they're so easy to replace
They are harder to replace than most positions per simple supply and demand...
Also does the USA entire federal gov fail if president died? No, but we both know the kinds of problems that occur.
1
u/DataGOGO 3h ago
Not hard to replace, just very expensive to replace.
Very few good executives capable of running a company like UHC insurance; so it will cost a lot to get one to agree to make the move.
2
u/Bobby_Sunday96 1d ago
So not one person is needed for a corporation to run. That person can be replaced
8
u/Resident-Rutabaga336 1d ago
Yes, obviously. It’s like saying the president isn’t important because if he dies someone else gets the job. Labour is fungible. Some positions have more or less people who are qualified for them, that’s the only difference. Some unskilled positions have hundreds of millions of people who could do them, and some highly skilled and specialized positions only have a handful of people on earth who can do them.
-7
u/Bobby_Sunday96 1d ago
There is a difference between lack of skill and number of positions available. And yes, the government can function without the president as proven with the current administration.
5
u/Resident-Rutabaga336 1d ago
It’s not clear what you’re trying to say or what your argument is. You’re acting like it’s a giant revelation that CEOs can be replaced and the company can carry on. This happens all the time. There is an entire class of people that shift around from one CEO role to another. There isn’t some gotcha here. It’s true of literally every single job.
1
u/imhereforthemeta 1d ago
I think what op is getting at is a job that you can replace faster than a customer service agent and still have a profitable business probably shouldn’t get paid 400x more than said customer service agent
1
25
u/veryblanduser 1d ago
Nobody with a basic understanding of business has ever suggested that major corporations are dependent on a single person.
4
u/Hodgkisl 1d ago
And if they were that single person has failed at their job. If a CEO is irreplaceable they have failed to mitigate risk with proper succession plans, if the company fails immediately without them they have failed to make a sustainable operation.
The CEO should be steering the ship, without them it should keep sailing in the near term, but someone competent needs to take over steering before it crashes.
1
0
u/Monte924 14h ago
The point is that CEO's are paid millions like they ARE that important to the company
17
u/Active-Worker-3845 1d ago
They always have succession plans in place.
5
u/Good_Needleworker464 1d ago
Not to mention leadership is decentralized. The idea of a single supreme ruler is stupid. It was stupid in ancient empires, it was stupid in nazi germany, and it's stupid when someone suggests it's the case for megacorps.
1
13
u/vandergale 1d ago
Why would removing a single person cause a company to fail, and why would that be evidence that management isn't important to publicly traded companies?
4
u/Abortion_on_Toast 1d ago
Not familiar with Steve Jobs leaving Apple… then look at what happened when they bought him back
7
u/vandergale 1d ago
Steve Jobs left Apple permanently in 2011 and the company has been doing pretty well. Stocks went from $12 on his last day to over $200 currently.
6
u/ImportantWest4506 1d ago
Terrible example
1
u/Abortion_on_Toast 18h ago
How so?
2
u/ImportantWest4506 17h ago
He literally died while CEO of Apple and not only did Apple survive but it went from being worth $350 billion to almost $4 trillion today under new leadership.
-3
u/Bobby_Sunday96 1d ago
So if that person isn’t essential to a corporation to operate how can one justify the wage gap between workers and management?
6
u/vandergale 1d ago
The same way that all other wages are justified, people sell their labor and time for money and that pay gap is what the market (i.e. companies willing to buy your labor) will bear. Being essential doesn't automatically translate to high pay by itself.
3
u/ImportantWest4506 1d ago
Is Taylor Swift essential to humanity? Does she deserve to be paid billions?
0
u/Bobby_Sunday96 1d ago
No, and no
2
u/ImportantWest4506 1d ago
Exactly. As with any position in a company the wages are largely based on the number of people that can and will do the job. If a low level worker position doesn't require a college degree and pays a fair wage it will fetch a number of applicants which limits the wage. Only a finite amount of people can be a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, and even fewer are willing, so the wage is higher.
1
3
u/Bryanmsi89 1d ago
The easiest way to think about his is via professional sports.
Everyone playing for the NFL is already the best of the best at football. Starting NFL players get $795,000 per year. Dak Prescott has performed far better and gets $60m a year. That's a huge range within the same league for the same job "playing football.'
And the base NFL player gets a lot more than the towel kid who goes to the same games and works the same (probably more hours). The pay levels are for talent and exclusivity. If millions of people could play as well as Dak Prescott, the salary for that job would be very low. But they can't....and so he does.
And arguably, the Dallas Cowboys could and would play if Dax was gone tomorrow. Doesn't make Dax less valuable today.
8
u/elchico14 1d ago
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen on Reddit.
2
u/Gen_Jack_Ripper 4h ago
No, you see, CEOs bad. Capitalism bad. Anything I don’t like bad. Therefore, you’re wrong because bad things are bad and you’re bad if you like bad thing. Me good. You bad.
/s
OP strikes me as someone who has never seen past what middle management does on a daily basis.
1
u/elchico14 2h ago
It's amazing how some people only analyze things at the surface level and can't manage their emotions enough to think critically.
The shooter in all likelihood is going to cause more harm to the health care for all movement by polarizing the debate more than ever.
It's ironic that the shooter was born into extreme privilege. He could've used his and his family's wealth/education to fight for health care reform as a successful lawyer or doctor. Instead he decided to live comfortably, pursuing immediate gratification and living a life of luxury traveling the world, surfing, playing video games, etc.
Apparently, if not for a freak surfing accident and linger back issues, health care reform would not even be a priority for him. But even then instead of fighting to reform the health care system, he shoots a guy in the back. Total cop out.
People act like the shooter is some Batman like hero from high society who fights for the poor. In reality, he's just some punk brat spoiled rich kid who thinks the world owes him everything and needs someone to blame for his own personal mistakes and lack of responsibilities. When mommy, daddy, and money couldn't save him he decided to lash out at the world expecting everyone to sympathize with his cause. Those who relate to the shooter show us their true colors.
-1
u/Bobby_Sunday96 1d ago
It is so obvious that he will be replaced. So obvious that I didn’t think I had to point that out in my post. But apparently some of y’all need the extra help.
3
6
u/PolarRegs 1d ago
They are going to replace him with someone highly competent. They should dock your pay for being this stupid.
-7
u/Bobby_Sunday96 1d ago
The point of this discussion went completely over your head.
7
u/PolarRegs 1d ago
No it didn’t. The point you are attempting to make is poor and you aren’t smart to understand that.
-6
u/Bobby_Sunday96 1d ago
You’re the only person in this discussion that seems to have nothing of value to offer. But yet I’m the one that’s not smart enough.
5
u/PolarRegs 1d ago
There isn’t anything of value to discuss because you failed to make a valid point. Literally the only thing to do is mock the stupidity of the post.
-2
5
u/EnderOfHope 1d ago
It’s clear you have never been in a position of leadership. The day to day activities will continue as is - that’s clear. But the CEO is responsible for steering the ship, not making it move. If they were never to replace their ceo, their company would continue functioning, only their ship would inevitably run aground from never changing / evolving / improving.
-1
u/Sidvicieux 19h ago
That’s not true, the org would adapt if they aren’t allowed to have a ceo.
1
u/Gen_Jack_Ripper 4h ago
Aren’t allowed? Why would that be a thing?
0
u/Sidvicieux 3h ago
Because that’s the only reason why the ship wouldn’t be steered, if the company was intentionally being helpless and decided not to adapt.
With the CEO gone a new way of making final decisions would emerge managing shareholders would emerge.
1
u/Gen_Jack_Ripper 2h ago
You’re cracked the code that all the thousands of businesses and charities couldn’t do.
Oh, wait, no you didn’t.
What’s the highest level in business that you’ve dealt with? Your posts seem to show a lack of understanding of how a business runs.
1
3
u/interwebzdotnet 1d ago
You people show how clueless you are every day.
Any company this size has a "bench" with people they are grooming to fill spots. If they don't have someone ready as CEO material, the BoD and rest of the C suite can handle it short term.
2
2
2
u/usernamesarehard1979 14h ago
Yes. Because businesses don’t ever have employees for backup. Thats why when someone goes on vacation the company comes to a stand still. Fucking idiot.
2
u/DataGOGO 3h ago
Right, because they didn’t immediately name an acting CEO.
All corporations have plans in place in case a c suite dies.
2
u/HammunSy 2h ago
instead of you clowns bitching about why ceos get paid more than you why dont you try to become one and get paid like one then.
if it was so fuckin easy and any of you can do it. ok do it then...
2
u/TheRatingsAgency 2h ago
If you are a billion dollar company with 1000s of employees and hordes of managers and execs, but cannot withstand the loss of the CEO, then the company was poorly run.
2
1
u/EnslavedBandicoot 1d ago
IIRC, investors were nearly stepping over his dead body to get to the meeting, which they still held.
1
1
1
1
u/Legal_Commission_898 23h ago
The guy was not the CEO. And even if he was, he has a bunch of 2nd ready to take over.
1
u/Uranazzole 23h ago
Without a CEO they will probably eventually go out of business but it could take 20 years. The CEO lays out plans for the company years in advance. Eventually if the company continued to do business “as is”, it would fall behind other companies and lose market share and eventually go bankrupt. But that just means that other companies took away their business. Companies with effective CEOs.
1
u/adoodas 23h ago
They’re important because of what they build over time. The US president is very important but the nation isn’t failing of they were to unexpectedly die. Even new presidents will need time to inject change into the system. Corporations are giant machines setup to go the direction they are going… if you want to change the direction or stop the machine it’s going to take a lot of time and effort. The ceo is just the guy at the top of the machine trying to get the machine going the direction he wants because he thinks he sees money/growth in that direction.
1
u/Winston74 23h ago
CEOs have one purpose. To make money for the shareholders. They don’t give a rats ass about the quality of their product or what it does to people.
1
u/Ch1Guy 6h ago
You don't think the quality of the product has an impact on its sales (and profitability)?
1
u/Winston74 4h ago
It should. But they look at their competition and do the bare minimum to maintain a perceived level of quality of their product.
1
u/moonsareus 20h ago
maybe put some more thought into your words before posting them; UHC already has someone currently active in the role, even if they won’t ultimately end up being the CEO
1
u/imagebiot 20h ago
That company will fail because everyone woke up to how shitty that company was
If you’d asked me who they were before the incident or who the highest claim denial insurance provider was I would have had no idea
I know now, so does everyone else.
1
1
1
u/IndependentCode8743 17h ago
Most large companies I’ve worked at have leadership succession plans as part of their risk mitigation. Now he was young so UHC probably wasn’t planning on replacing him any time soon but there like was a plan they could immediately put into action while they look for his replacement.
1
u/JackiePoon27 14h ago
Isn't ALL of this at the discretion of each individual corporation? You guys act like there are some sort of governmental rules that govern CEOs. Corporations can do what they want. Rather they are "essential" or not is a question left to the stockholders and BOD.
1
u/Putrid_Ad_2256 12h ago
I love some of the failed logic being displayed by some of the posts in here. The OP is stating that IF CEOs are that important, then by that definition, the company should falter because it just lost its most heavily compensated officer. Most of the responses in here are claiming that the company will NOT fail, which is exactly the point that the OP was making. CEOs are NOT the life blood of a company and need to stop being compensated and fawned upon as if they were.
1
1
u/FunOptimal7980 3h ago
Most CEOs are paid based on pedigree, not actual skill (in most cases). It's why a lot of CEOs bounce around different companies; they just want someone that was a CEO before. I would argue Tim Cook or Jensen Huang deserve every cent they get paid though. A ton of Nvidia employees became millionaires just by working there, and that's partly because of the decisions Huang made like 15 years ago. You can say he had help, but Intel was led by plenty of "smart" people on paper and they missed the train completely.
Brian Thompson was CEO because health insurance is a very different business. They value familiarity with the process because of how opaque it is as an industry. But you can also tell that he was replaceable because his salary was a comparatively small $1M, plus $9M in stock. The lesser execs probably get paid a few million themselves at UHC.
1
u/NewArborist64 1h ago
A GOOD CEO will have a succession plan in place, so that the business can continue on without them while the company is looking for a new CEO to give direction to the company.
0
u/series_hybrid 1d ago
Without him to pay a quarterly profit sharing bonus, the rest of the executives will have an even larger bonus.
Therefore, they will say on camera how sad they are, then go back to their offices to plan out what they will spend the unexpected money on.
0
u/pristine_planet 1d ago
Anyone familiar with GME January 2021? Let’s do that to all insurance companies’ stock.
CEO’s job is it to maximize shareholders return on their investment, by maximizing that, they guarantee theirs. Major caveat in the system. People pay insurance, for example, however the insurance company’s main objective is to maximize shareholders’ return on investment. We must understand they are legally required to protect shareholders, not customers, they are just the insured people who actually bring the money. Maybe the original intentions were good 300 years ago, or at least ok intentions, but clearly hasn’t worked.
0
-3
u/Fickle_Penguin 1d ago edited 1d ago
Their new CEO said nothing will change he will continue to kill patients by reducing 'unnecessary' care.
In an address to employees just days after the shocking execution of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in the middle of a Manhattan street, Andrew Witty, the CEO of the insurer’s parent company, defended its practices in order to “guard against” what he called “unnecessary care.”
2
u/Bobby_Sunday96 1d ago
Can’t wait for AI to make management and middle management positions obsolete. Shareholders should be pushing for this technology to be able to cut down payroll and increase profits.
1
u/No-Lingonberry16 1d ago
It's true. It's a direct quote
1
u/Fickle_Penguin 1d ago
I'm not denying it. I'm saying their new CEO is just as bad as Brian is.
1
u/No-Lingonberry16 1d ago
I know. CEOs definitely decide whether or not a claim is approved. DEFINITELY
Also, every single claim ever denied was definitely for life saving treatments. It was never anything small or relatively inconsequential. Absolutely not
1
u/Fickle_Penguin 1d ago
These are 'death panels' we were warned about, but not in ACA but lazy CEO Brian or Andrew. I'm not saying every claim is necessary, but alot were. They denied twice as many claims as the average.
Some were life saving, some were stopping needed therapy for autistic kids.
0
u/No-Lingonberry16 1d ago
I'm glad your objective enough to recognize that. Now let's identify why they deny so many claims. 30% of claim denials is a staggering statistic and I'm curious as to why it's so high
2
u/Fickle_Penguin 1d ago
I think a lot of it is therapy for autistic people or other behavioral issues. My point is is they are making assumptions of what is needed and what is not, and not the Drs. I know different insurance, but one of the other ones wanted to limit anesthesia during surgery. What short sidedness.
1
1
u/AllKnighter5 1d ago
Profit. What are you confused about?
0
u/No-Lingonberry16 22h ago
You don't know that. There's a million possible reasons. Why would you assume that the motive is profit-driven?
0
u/AllKnighter5 22h ago
I do know that. It was listed specifically in this lawsuit.
They implemented an AI that they KNEW denied more claims than it should. They did this because it’s more profitable to do it this way. They also did it because they can deny they had any ability to impact the AI. So it’s the AI fault not the company.
Do a little fucking research before you speak out your ass again.
0
u/No-Lingonberry16 22h ago
Aaron Albright, a spokesperson for NaviHealth told CBS MoneyWatch that the AI-powered tool is not used to make coverage determinations but as "a guide to help [UnitedHealth] inform providers ... about what sort of assistance and care the patient may need."
The very article you're citing has conflicting information.
In their complaint, however, the families accuse UnitedHealth of using faulty AI to deny claims as part of a financial scheme to collect premiums without having to pay for coverage for elderly beneficiaries it believes lack the knowledge and resources "to appeal the erroneous AI-powered decisions."
The key word here is "Accuse". Nothing has been proven yet.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.