you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is unfortunately true, they'll likely win the case on that angle.

    My point is that legislation shouldn't guarantee earnings from gambling under unforeseen circumstances. That's just gambling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Seriously, how many times have I heard the argument that CEOs should be making "the big bucks" because they're taking on "the big risks"? Yet except for Brian Thompson, I can't think of any CEOs who've ever actually incurred risks from their "gambles." They always seem to make cuts to everyone and everything else before accepting a loss, or else jump ship with a golden parachute (and probably go on to fuck up a different company afterwards.) Of course, I can't deny the possibility that CEOs who fail don't make the news, and this is just survivorship bias (no pun intended.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The CEOs aren't making any risks at all, it's the shareholders taking risks. The unfairness comes in when the government protects them from their own risk while leaving the poor out to rot.

  • source
  • parent