Fortunately, most of these people managed to find new jobs relatively quickly, albeit with somewhat lower comp packages.
In a higher interest environment the startup money dries up a lot so the risk to your oligopoly is much lower and the demand for yield on your stock increases dramatically so you worry less about a startup and more about maximizing value from your work force (which leads to lower pay on average and layoffs to rightsize), plus the cost of buying a successful startup will be lower because the discount factor from the higher interest rate caps price expansion.
In backpacking when we're trying to lighten our packs, we have a saying, "don't cut ounces when you can cut pounds." Yet the highest-paid people involved in a company always look at the lowest paid workers to see where they can cut costs, because after all, they can't possibly pay themselves less.
Troll elsewhere.
> And cutting 80% of your ounces in backpacking makes a difference. If cutting 80% of your ounces changes so little about your backpacking trip that you don't notice a decline in enjoyment you didn't need that 80%.
Exactly!
Now look at who owns 80% of the wealth in the US.
This is certainly true, but that $100k MBA doesn't have enough money to buy the company, so he can't run it as a private company like Elon does. A Twitter owned by someone far less narcissistic (or publicly owned) could hire the MBA to run it, but that won't happen because that's not how companies choose their CEOs: the $100k MBA doesn't have the social connections and resume to get the job in the first place.