> Millions (and billions) come out of their valuation as a result. It's not like they're getting whisked away on a golden parachute.

It's the exact opposite. They're more likely to stem the bloodletting of their valuation with layoffs extending runway or boosting profitabiliy than see it get worse.

>Do y'all expect them to cut their arm off?

That depends. Are they expecting their subordinates to cut their arms off?

I do think a lot of discussion seems to point to how we, as a society, have adjusted our social norms about what's expected out of leadership.

> Are they expecting their subordinates to cut their arms off?

Do you expect company management and subordinates to have symmetrical work obligations?

Not at all. But we seem okay with management having a larger upside, given how the pay structure ratio has continued to evolve over the last few decades. I think it's only reasonable that, with outside rewards, management expects to take on outsized risk.

It feels like the social norms have shifted to accept one but not the other. In other words, we're only supportive of an asymmetrical risk:reward ratio that favors management.

> In other words, we're only supportive of an asymmetrical risk:reward ratio that favors management.

Actually we have, the risk:reward ratio is generally consistent across founder/management vs IC.

Are you simply saying that because CEO to IC pay ratio has expanded drastically in recent years that it's not accurately accounting for the risk? You realize that ~x% cut in workforce includes managers right? In fact, often times cheaper more productive ICs stay and expensive middle management is first to go. Seems like that is accounting for it no?

I thought this discussion was centered on the CEO pay. To that extent CEO pay has ballooned and I see very little evidence that their risk has been commensurate with that growth. If anything, the structure of contracts seems to indicate the opposite.