
The era of distrust and disloyalty - joeyespo
http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/new-thinking/era-distrust-and-disloyalty
======
carsongross
The destruction of previously high-trust societies is the story of the west in
the last forty years. It will be fascinating to read the eventual analysis.

~~~
bsbechtel
A few years back there was a lot of talk about a coming digital dark age. Due
to not a lack of information, but an overabundance of information and an
inability to discern truth from fiction. I think we are arriving at that
moment now.

------
jondubois
Farmers have often been at the mercy of corporations and it's not uncommon for
them rise up and form their own unions in an attempt to sell directly to
customers.

Modern capitalism rewards those who can capture value over the those who
create value. It's not about the product or service; the scales are tipped in
favor of those who have access to the money (essentially; those who have
access to the customers).

That's why marketing is such a powerful force in our society. People tend to
trust marketing more than they trust their own senses... A lot of popular
brands offer horrible quality products - Particularly in the food industry,
but that doesn't stop people from consuming them to great excess.

~~~
Mikeb85
> the scales are tipped in favor of those who have access to the money

Yup, pretty much. Turns out Piketty (and before him, Marx) are right.

Of course, since democracy depends on marketing, politicians have done a great
job marketing a political system that doesn't work for the common person, yet
they still vote for it. As long as they have a shiny toy in their hands, and
something to entertain (distract) them, the masses are placated...

------
dualogy
"We are seeing the emergence of an anti-visual design movement, as more and
more customers are becoming distrustful of smiling faces, soft tones and soft
language."

Not seeing that yet but it can't come soon enough.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Ultimately little will change but the tactics. The propaganda industry has
learned time and time again that ever more "personalization" is an ever
greater means to control people as they become so wrapped up in their
primitive desires they ignore the blatant manipulation being performed by
them.

The hippies thought that consumerism's end was just around the corner. Then
Madison Avenue learned the value in simulating self-actualization, and
catering to those desires. The hippies became the hipsters.

~~~
hderms
Did you watch "The Century of the Self", by chance? Great movie, either way.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Once you see a film like that, it's impossible to get it out of your head.

------
PavlovsCat
> Simplicity, usefulness, functionality, details and facts, transparency;
> these are the pillars of the new digital design. We trust what we can
> quickly and easily use but only as long as it’s useful. Design for use.
> Design for usefulness.

Amen! That reminded me of an essay I love dearly: [http://fadeyev.net/moral-
design/](http://fadeyev.net/moral-design/)

------
x0x0
If you liked this, you may also like _Twilight of the Elites_ by Chris Hayes.
It discusses the disillusionment many of us feel when we discover what our
leaders and elites have gotten up to.

[http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-After-
Meritocr...](http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-After-
Meritocracy/dp/0307720462)

------
Donwangugi
One item I believe that is missing from this obersavation is that modern
design is all about getting the user to trust and love the product. In reality
users should treat their products with more respect than trust, especially
when considering privacy and security concerns. Even if something is useful,
that does not mean it should be trusted.

------
profeta
compelling example but naive. it fails to look at how social media is evolving
to handle that as well. Companies PR are now abandoning the smiling white
families in banners because they know it won't work. They are now using your
relatives smiles. We are eating the same spin, but now it is disguised as our
friends' opinions.

------
gizi
Imagine a company doing $10 billion in yearly revenue. If the right guy
manages the joint, it will do $11 billion. Are you willing to pay 10 million a
year for this person? What if another company in similar circumstances offers
20 million? And another company 50 million? In the end, they all have 1
billion at stake. So, they all could even offer more and still be laughing all
the way to the bank. In other words, even if a CEO could only make a
difference of 10% on a large company's revenues, it would still be worth it to
pay him incredibly large amounts of money. Apple paying Steve Jobs $50 billion
would still have been a very cheap bargain. He made a difference of way more
than that.

~~~
pitay
The same could be said for any other employees. Programmers, warehouse workers
or whatever. Maybe they could be paid for the difference they make too. Yet
this doesn't happen, because the supply side is important as well, as well as
the lack of power these people have.

From what I see, finding the right guy to manage a company is very hit and
miss in the real world. Just look at Ron Johnson. He was previously senior
vice president of retail operations at Apple, and then hired as CEO of J.C.
Penny. He was fired as CEO from J.C. Penny in 2013, after retail sales were
down by 32% and stock prices fell steeply. This was despite him having a very
successful tenure at Apple. The pricing should factor in the uncertainty and
risk of the performance of someone in the position of CEO.

I have probably have not touched most of things that could be issues here,
such as corruption, and that some CEOs are just extremely incompetent. I
remember a CEO that was given 250 million dollars to leave because he had that
much negative impact on the company he was running. This was someone that the
board thought was a great hire.

Anyway, I find the post I am replying to is way too simplistic and looks at
CEOs with extremely rose coloured glasses. There is a lot more to consider.

~~~
blfr
_The same could be said for any other employees. Programmers, warehouse
workers or whatever._

Some programmers, maybe, but very few could move large company's revenue by
10%. And almost certainly no one moving physical stuff around in a warehouse
could.

~~~
falcolas
> no one moving physical stuff around in a warehouse could [move large
> company's revenue by 10%]

Sure they could. They're the feet on the ground, so to say, and so they have
the best insight into inefficiencies which are occurring on a day-to-day
basis. You can bet it wasn't a CEO who discovered UPS' "only make right turns"
trick. Or Bezos who optimized Amazon's warehouses.

A 10% reduction in costs is very realistic for these kinds of finds, and those
reduction in costs are worth more than a 10% increase in revenue.

------
kfk
Putting things in perspective: half million makes up to about 20-25k per month
once you take out taxes in Europe. While huge, it is not incredibly huge. A
semi-decent doctor can get close to that amount (it's easy when you charge
euro 100 per visit and you forget to pay taxes).

I am just saying that paychecks tend to be overestimated by people in the low
to medium income brackets. Most of those half million folks work 24/7\. Once
you divide by the amount of crazy hours they work, they are making more or
less like a decently paid engineer...

I am more upset by how much doctors make, for many of them in the end do an
office job (they don't have hundreds of families futures in their hands). Also
because, in many cases, those incomes are high because of stupid laws rather
than market value. While CEO do tend to be more on market value.

~~~
SwellJoe
_" While CEO do tend to be more on market value._"

When market value is set by the CEOs themselves, the trend in market value is
ever upward, as long as there is no pressure in the opposite direction. The
highest paid executives have seen their share of the pie grow drastically over
the past couple of decades, while fantasy stories of their importance and
value get passed around to convince everyone that a CEO making 250 times the
average worker salary is perfectly reasonable.

Competence has value, but the royal treatment of C-levels is absurd.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The market value is set by the board of directors, not CEOs.

Furthermore, supposing there were some sort of absentee owner effect (boards
of directors are comprised of other CEOs, and they conspire to raise each
other's pay), you'd expect to see a different market value in closely held
corporations. Strangely, the price of a CEO for a closely held corporation
closely tracks the price of a CEO for absentee shareholders.

[http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...](http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2424&context=dlj)

The obvious way to fix this is with increased shareholder activism (ala Gordon
Gekko), and reducing regulations on hostile takeovers. Possibly also
regulating things like poison pills, staggered board elections, etc. Do you
favor such rule changes? If not, why not?

~~~
maxxxxx
I believe the salary transparency requirement for CEOs was the best thing that
ever happened to them. It's easy to negotiate a raise if you know what the
other guy is making.

This will be unpopular but I think all salaries should be made public. This
would allow a lot of people to negotiate better salaries.

~~~
SwellJoe
This one is tricky. H1B visa holder salaries _are_ transparent. And, they tend
to make less than their US citizen peers. But, I guess it would need to be
transparent for everyone for it to work out. There have been companies that
have done it, but they've often already been focused on treating everyone
fairly before or as part of the move to transparency. If the goal of the
company is not to engender a team spirit by treating everybody as well as
possible, but instead to maximize profits, then it would likely tend toward
executives trying to keep pay low across all employees and would limit their
willingness to hire outliers who demand very high salaries.

I don't know, is what I think I'm trying to say. There hasn't been a lot of
data...very few companies are open about the salaries they pay, and there is a
definitely hesitation among employees about discussing their salary (and it is
often discouraged by the company, to boot).

