I asked an LLM to translate the idea into corporate jargon (it turns out this is something they’re actually quite good at) and it spat this out:
Office-Safe Jargon: "Executive compensation levels may warrant further evaluation in light of current financial performance. A potential avenue for optimizing resource allocation could involve a modest reduction in executive remuneration, which may contribute positively to overall profitability.
Not to excuse the relentless flow of money upward, but the two times we had to do (temporary) pay cuts in my career, it was 10-15% for employees, paid back eventually, and 35-50% for executives, not repaid. At two different companies. So I do know at least sometimes it’s done that way.
The execs were never in danger of missing any necessities.
Agreed.
and cut it out with the stock buybacks!
