Agree it is a shitty thing to happen and companies should avoid it where possible.

However I will give some advice to those who haven't experienced it yet..

You can either be sad and angry about it and be negative all day, or you can look at the flip side and tell yourself there is something better out there for you.

When I lost my job many years ago, I was sad that I would not get to work with the people that I got used to working with and even some of them were mates from UNI. However at that point in my life I said you know what, fuck it, let me see beyond my bubble and see what is out there based on the years of various experiences that I gained.

In turn by telling my sell you deserve something good in your life and not caring about my small little bubble I ended up finding a great job were I normally wouldn't even consider applying. Moved to a new state and been at the same company now for 10 years. Have made many great new friends and work colleagues are all nice and supportive of each other.

There are also plenty of personal live experiences I would not have gained if I stayed in my safe small bubble. I would not change it for the world. Loosing that job was the best thing for my life as it created a better opportunity. However I wanted to look for that opportunity, it does not just land on your lap.

Thanks for the Macro class 101, anything else you want to teach me? You taught an economics PHD student a whole lot!

Have you ever heard of a certain concept called externalities that can cause distortions in the market equilibrium leading to inefficient market equilibrium wages? 

Do you want me to link you to a few research papers so that you can perhaps educate yourself a bit more before making a fool out of yourself?

The system is broken, and me pointing it out doesn't mean I'm some lazy ass who refuses to work. The only lazy person here is you for thinking 101 economics fundamentals was enough for justifying your dumbfounded argument.

Edit: Here is a research paper talking a bit about the diminishing marginal utility of wealth: (PDF) The Value of Behavioral Economics for EU Judicial Decision-Making (researchgate.net)

I did say stuff, did you even bother to read? Maybe, you're just the one who just WANTS to see something and refuses to acknowledge the reality.

Have you ever heard causal versus correlation? Even though you won, it absolutely does not mean YOU'RE the reason you made money. I have a better explanation for your winnings, it's called: luck.

And I have no problem with gambling, heck, I enjoy gambling a bit myself... But come on lol...

Would society be better off with a CEO making a 200M$ bonus, or, a CEO making a 10M$ bonus and the 190M$ being paid as bonus to it's employees? (real economics question)

All of you who argue this dumbfounded logic that he got paid what the ''market equilibrium'' was offering for his position. The ultimate goal in economics is to maximize market efficiency, and thus, maximize society's utility surplus.

Real question, looking forward to your answer!

EDIT: See previous post, accidentally posted twice.

Nah.

There's a difference between me saying ''I have a degree meaning I know more than you'' and the fact that this is literally the field that I am actively doing research in. You said that he's receiving 200M$ because ''that's what the market values him at'' and I'm telling you that it's really not that simple. Some markets are incapable of being efficient on their own and, therefor, require intervention by a third party entity (namely, often, the government) in order to restore the efficiency of said market. That is why we have minimum wages, that is why you are taxed in order to pay for street maintenance, public lighting, parks, etc. That's because markets, by themselves, would not be capable of offering those ''products'' in an efficient manner that would benefit our society. 

And then comes the jobbing market, where, once again, there are many externalities and variables that will affect a market's ability to insure that the equilibrium wage is an efficient one. I can absolutely tell you that paying your CEO 200M$ is not efficient, nor for Activision, nor for it's employees, nor for society. However, that is what they chose to pay him, but that does NOT make it efficient (and I'm not even arguing from a moral point of view here which is a whole other story). 

I do not live in EU as well but, yes, there are market distortions in the US too. The concept of diminishing marginal utility on wage is also not an exclusive EU thing, it's a universal thing that applies everywhere for any individual. For example, if I gave you 1 million bucks, your life would probably improve by a good amount. Now, if I gave you 9 million more after that, your life would probably still improve but, each additional million dollars would improve your life less than the previous million. 

Now, for this case, say split the 190M$ of the CEO's bonus among the workers and gave the CEO 10M$ instead, would society be better off? Or would society be better off with the CEO receiving the full 200M$?

Now, you argue that he ''deserved'' the 200M$ according to the market, but did he truly deserve it if he was paid in an inefficient manner for said job market? 

And just to be clear, I'm not arguing against rich people or capitalism. I'm arguing to maximize the efficiency of our society which can be done while having rich people... 

Tweaks to our current economy can be made while still preserving capitalism and also reducing severe market inequalities.

Edit: And I would like to say that I did reread my original statement and I did come off as rude to you, so I do apologize as I didn't intend to be insulting. 

What has seasonal work to do with the context of this threads opener?

Stock goes down, buy, it goes up, sell. Low risk if you play that way.