Maybe, but I don’t think it makes it any more defensible.

during a time like this I expect a CEO to take charge, be a leader, and make a steady plan for the future of the company, not punish people.

Wonder how much does this CEO work and what their effective hourly wage is.

If employees are paid fairly, then should it matter? As a founder and an owner I gather, it means less, as a publicly traded company it means a little more. But in the big picture, it matters very little if employees are duly compensated. BTW he has a boss (or bosses) also (or investors, boards, customers).

Any other view is justifying stealing from people just because they're "well compensated."

That ideology hasn't worked to well in the past.

> If not then that compensation doesn't make sense and in effect is stealing from others who are producing that value.

While I admire the premise of this line of thinking, this is not how Capitalism works. It is also very difficult to quantify value also, how does person X compare to person Y doing the same job compare in regards to the term of value. If person X has more seniority, or maybe less but greater skills, produces more etc. Let alone person X and Y who are equivalent, but work on different parts of the machine. Heck devs are drastically more valued at the moment than receptionists but receptionist may work harder.

Now I sit somewhere between Ayn Rand and a Socialist, but I definitely believe in Capitalist ideals, that a person should be paid on their market value, and profits are made for those on top in regards to what value the entire machine produces. Those in the middle shouldn't suffer though, but that can never be attributed to theft (there are a few cases which escape this), unless you take on a more Communist idealism.

It's also still theft no matter what system of economy you believe in.

If someone is taking the compensation of the value you're adding to the economy, that's theft.

As I said I stand between an Ayn Rand type of system and and a socialist system. So while I think Capitalism is definitely the better options, I don't deny it's failings.

> It might have been a necessary transition but as it stands right now it's ruining the world bit by bit.

There are obviously areas it can be improved, however as it stands there are a lot more benefits than problems.

> It's also still theft no matter what system of economy you believe in.

> If someone is taking the compensation of the value you're adding to the economy, that's theft.

If people are compensated for their work then it isn't theft, when you agree to sell X (you effort) for Y (money), especially where Y is not capped in too many ways then it is not theft.

Remember person isn't adding the entire value to the economy, the company is, the product is.

And it is fine if you disagree.

I’ve left a company before because there were no negative consequences for the people who were slacking off. When you’re putting in 150% because the other guy on your team is only putting in 50%, it gets old fast. The good people leave for more productive environments while the slackers tend to accumulate.

No one likes being on the receiving end of a memo to work harder. Ideally the CEO would have taken a more discreet, targeted approach to performance problems. However, it really is better for everyone to have the situation and goals laid out in public without sugar coating it.