Again, the issue of the ‘cyber’security skill gap (#ditchcyber, and skill ..?) came up, in this thing. Which seems like a logical piece. But it isn’t. It falls into the same trap as a great many other articles, et al.: When discussing rising pay, do they apply economics 101 ..? No they don’t. They see rising pay, but not the enormous chasm between the risen pay and the market-clearing pay. The former, paltry. The latter …:
Why on earth should people that, apparently, have so much more impact on the results of any company than the CEO or Board has, not be paid respective incomes? If, if, if, the company were rationally managed, the ‘cyber’punks that protect the company, would earn five to fifty times more than the CEO does. As that would reflect the value-to-impact ratio. No, let the CEOs, Boards, do their babble double full time anywhere; it’s still babble without much if any, if any positive contribution to the bottom line. [The very rare exceptions noted. Fun fact: You’re not one of them.]
So, where CEOs claim [corollary fun fact: falsely!] to have such an impact that they deserve the 500-5000+ times the income of workers that actually do have an impact, the ‘cyber’punks to be hired should have such a multiple above that, or are you illogical, irrational on the verge of insanity ..? [not saying on which side of the verge.]
Another option is to not pay the in-demands (?) so ridiculously … and also not the Boards. Oh how huge the pools of money would be that then would flow to the employees that actually matter …?
Also, the ‘skills’ gap is mainly a supply gap, made so most certainly by the demand side (as in this; in Dutch but G Translate will do some, possibly mediocre, trick).
So, for now:
[Yet another Board member (uh-huh, you-know-what-I-mean) compensating design (though Good); London]