LMAO, people deliberately misunderstand your point.
I think you made it clear in the context of what is being discussed here. But some just want to move the discussion somewhere else and ignore your point completely.
Yes, some companies see it as something normal. It's a disgusting gesture to the people who have been fired.
For some companies it is normal because some work is seasonal.
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)
Something I have learned in fire and rescue is that... Just because you have a "Piece of paper" that says you are "Competent" at something, does not equate to you being "Proficient" at something.
However your qualifications or intellectual fortitude was never placed into question, so do not question mine... And as you have no idea what qualifications I have, they may exceed your own anyway. - Nor did I delve into ad hominem in order to undermine your position, but there you go.
Plus I never asserted that you were lazy or refused to work, I merely stated we should not hold others back to strive towards earning big money.
The EU is a very different job market to the one I am currently engaged in, so I cannot speak on the behalf of the EU and what is happening on the other side of the planet.
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.