> because him and his ilk exist to maximise investor returns over service to the paying customers. that meme stops making any sense as soon as you start asking why so much money goes to "administrative overhead", when it could be used to maximize investor returns. not that i don't see the reasoning behind  > "we want to attract high quality talent with large financial incentives in the hopes that they will be more likely to produce greater results than someone who is being paid minimum wage". it just seems like there might be some sort of "pattern" where it is not uncommon that the people who do provide considerable value to a company are not the ones receiving these "large financial incentives". offtopic, but does anyone happen to have any hot takes or strong opinions regarding the stonk market that they feel like sharing about?
United States