The myth of hard work and meritocracy.
- Thread starter Mark1031
- Start date
holy king
Deity
your not gonna ruin your spine by reading contracts, will you?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Arguably that depends on your posture.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Î think it is kind of a phony debate to speak about what one deserves. Economics have for all I see nothing to do with this. It is IMO a totally unreasonable and insensible metric. And it stinks of people who aren't even still able to look beyond the currency and see the actual realities beyond. To actually recognize that currency is defacto a legal right to have other people forced to satisfy your wishes. This is the practical essence. Other factors like competition or voting with your money, pursuing your wishes etcetera... That is all more like bijouterie to justify it. Those grand concepts sold as you sale something to customers don't describe the actual reality, rather only carefully selected parts of it. They just describe why we should accept the reality of it.
And in that reality what one deserves is for all I see fundamentally irrelevant.
Hence, what one "should earn" shouldn't be so much a matter of what one deserves, but what contributes to the best overall picture.
And in that reality what one deserves is for all I see fundamentally irrelevant.
Hence, what one "should earn" shouldn't be so much a matter of what one deserves, but what contributes to the best overall picture.
Well, it's not that simple. But technically the board of directors exists to see that the shareholders interests are put first. And so they hire and decide compensation for the CEO. But the shareholders are so dispersed that they cannot choose the board of directors themselves. Instead what often happens is that the CEO, the current Board, or some combination of the two, select a slate of candidates for the board and the shareholders are given a yay or nay vote. Nay votes pretty much never happening, the current executives are really in control of who will be the executives. This sets up a situation where CEO and board of directors have more personal incentive to serve themselves than they do the stockholders. Add in a lot of Wall St pressure to concern themselves only with the current stock price, and not at all with the long term health of the company, and you have a recipe for indifferent management at best.
HannibalBarka
We are Free
Absolutly agree with Cutlass here. There is a flagrant conflict of interest in the way "CEO-boad" is working in companies today. In the company where I was working 5 years ago, the CEO "interviewd" would be members of the board (I am not kidding). He surely do not hire them, but propose them to the other members of the board and to the representatitve of the different stakeholder, but that was sure enough weird.
Thnings like "top executive pay and benefits" should be subject to direct vote I think.
If that is done, than i don't see any thing wrong about a huge salary, quite the contrary.
This only shows that there are limits to how far capitalism can go. 
If shareholders have collectively rendered themselves incapable of exercising even rudimentary amount of control over their enterprise, they should have no-one to complain to.
Point is, appointing the board is the competence of shareholders - at least in every jurisdiction I know about. If they are incapable of doing even that to protect their own interest, they should just sell the stock and get the hell out. Simple as that.
If shareholders have collectively rendered themselves incapable of exercising even rudimentary amount of control over their enterprise, they should have no-one to complain to.
Point is, appointing the board is the competence of shareholders - at least in every jurisdiction I know about. If they are incapable of doing even that to protect their own interest, they should just sell the stock and get the hell out. Simple as that.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
It is not that simple, because shareholders do not move on a free market regarding the general conditions of shareholding. They can not pick legal environments, but have to subject to what the government mandates. Hence, the government mandate may be worth a look, instead of merely shrugging and say "duh, free market".
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
There isn't really any "moral debt" but no one owes you anything either. When you begin, you don't have any connections or experience and you don't know how to system works. Those things you have to work through and learn before you can be on the other side. Most people really suck at learning and grasping these concepts. Hard work is only part of the formula for success.
This only shows that there are limits to how far capitalism can go.
If shareholders have collectively rendered themselves incapable of exercising even rudimentary amount of control over their enterprise, they should have no-one to complain to.
Point is, appointing the board is the competence of shareholders - at least in every jurisdiction I know about. If they are incapable of doing even that to protect their own interest, they should just sell the stock and get the hell out. Simple as that.
The legal arrangements heavily favor management over shareholders. When shareholders have staged revolts, it's rarely really gained them anything.
Disgustipated
Deity
Things are different in America with regards to salaries. These CEO's think they deserve to make as much as a football star. And why not? Why does someone who play 16 games a year deserve to make more than a CEO?
Admittedly, I know next to nothing about corporate law in US... maybe you really are an outlier somehow. Mark's graph seems to support such an idea.
They dont get paid as much as a NFL football star though
They get paid many many many times more.
Quackers
The Frog
How does one explain this:
Why can't the US outsource some of these CEO jobs as something is obviously wrong with the free market in CEO labor.
i don't think it's that bad. iirc in that stat only the 100 biggest corporations in the US were used and they used a lot more other firms in those other countries.
i do think the US probably still has a far higher corporation compensation to worker compensation ratio - but i think that graphic is dishonest
You're right - the graph isn't numerically accurate:
source:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...facebook-post-ceo-worker-pay-ratio-has-obscu/
So, perhaps not as much as 475:1. But I don't think the revised numbers are any less egregious. Yes, the chart as posted is an exaggeration, but not by much.
I don't mind that some people get paid a lot of money - I honestly don't.
But when those same people whine about unfairness, social justice, and start preaching to less successful people about what they should do to change that - that's when I lose my patience.
But when those same people whine about unfairness, social justice, and start preaching to less successful people about what they should do to change that - that's when I lose my patience.
Similar threads
