I think it is the opposite. If you want to double the pay of your CEO every year then you're going to have to find that money somewhere, so it reduces the money available for other things. 'Slightly less' was never an option. That's why employees are often expected to work unpaid overtime and yet management gets ridiculous bonuses. And if it all goes bust: the taxpayer will make up the difference. These are all asymmetrical bets, CEOs pocket the gains and society ends up with the losses.
Yes, that's the cynical way of looking at it. I'm looking at it from another perspective saying it's even worse/more offensive as they could have given the software team a $1million increase, while still giving the CEO a nearly doubled salary. There's nearly double then slightly less nearly double? No. It's just nearly doubled no matter what at those rates.
Yes, that 'nearly' bit is the bit that matters. If 16M becomes 15M that is terrible for the CEO, better save some more on software (say another $10M) and pocket that extra million bonus based on higher profits for the shareholders. Because that's how it usually works.
Again, you're just pointing out what happens. I'm pointing out a reasonable alternative that gets both points achieved. If you're telling me that a CEO that is currently making $15 million but just won't be able to make it on $29 million instead of $30 million is just going to get no sympathy from me. None. At. All. The fact that you are on here just trying to use current logic on why the alternative I've proposed is the better solution is just preposterous and puts you in the part of the problem camp.
Not shockingly schools do the same thing. I had to buy a copy of Lord of the Flies for my high schooler’s English class, but the Super Intendant, who didn’t meet his performance goals, received a bonus that could have covered a good portion the English curriculum materials.
