|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Executive Pay - Good Capitalism Bad Capitalism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
RAZD writes: Looks like he found a vulnerable system to exploit, like all professional athletes, and was happy to do so. Athletes are different than CEO's. Athletes actually have to bargain with their bosses for their salaries. In the case of CEO's, there is often collusion between executives and the people holding the purse strings to raise their salaries as high as possible. At least with professional sports there is some level of antagonism between parties.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
RAZD writes: Do you think you are getting a fair share of the profit the company makes? Profit is what is made AFTER payments to employees. Profit is shared with the owners of the company, not the employees of the company. So the question doesn't make finacial sense. It might make social sense, but not, I fear, inside a capitalist structure as it is currently organised.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tangle writes:
quote: Profile is shared with those people the bylaws of the company say it should be shared with. Surely you aren't saying that an employee profit-sharing structure isn't "capitalist," are you? After all, we used to have regulations on companies that incentivized using those profits to increase employee salaries, provide better benefits, etc. But then the Reagan revolution came along and the regulations instead incentivized using those profits to pay dividends to shareholders. That, in turn, led to companies paying their board members and CEOs not through salaries but through stock...which then incentivized the board and CEO to make business decisions that are primarily geared toward improving the stock price rather than improving the company. Exactly how would adjusting our fiscal policy to redirect the use of those profits to be back into the company rather than the shareholders be against "capitalism"?Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
What a person needs and what a person deserves as fair compensation for work are two different things. Sure. That would seem to be my point. But you also seem to be saying that need is the basis for pay. And you also seem to be capping what a person can "deserve" based on things that don't seem to make any sense to me, and then attaching opprobrium ("thief", "exploiter") to folks you deem undeserving. According to you, people should be paid a "need rate" and then have to work extra hours to get more.
Walmart exploits their workers and steals money from them I have deliberately not been using corporations or employers as examples. I have been strictly using examples of employees who can demand and get large compensation without exploiting other workers. Yet I am drawing "but Walmart" response. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Rrhain writes: Exactly how would adjusting our fiscal policy to redirect the use of those profits to be back into the company rather than the shareholders be against "capitalism"? Because if you don't allow profits to be given back to owners, they won't make the investments necessary to create and grow companies.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
To add to what Rrhain said
RAZD writes: Do you think you are getting a fair share of the profit the company makes? It might make social sense, but not, I fear, inside a capitalist structure as it is currently organised. How companies decide to share profits is built into the management structure used. Capitalism comes in many forms, and what we in the US have is a mixture of feudal (CEO run) companies and democratic (cooperative) companies, and we have for-profit companies and non-profit companies. Getting a fair share from a corporation is similar to getting a fair shake from a government. If the structure is shared democratic and the people have a say, then they are much more likely to get a fair share. I find it exceedingly curious that people are happy and proud to have thrown off the yoke of feudal style (king run) government for a democratic style government, but are happy to embrace being serfs in a feudal style corporation. Whenever we talk about different countries and their governments it seems that the degree of democracy and voice that the people have is equated to relative freedom and liberty and good things they have. Yet whenever we talk about companies, the degree of democracy and voice that the workers have is not considered important. This is a huge disconnect. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Because if you don't allow profits to be given back to owners, they won't make the investments necessary to create and grow companies. And why does this not hold true for the sweat-equity investors in the company? Are there two kinds of people, elites and peons? Can the company succeed and grow without the workers? No. Can the company succeed and grow without the investors? Yes. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Athletes are different than CEO's. Athletes actually have to bargain with their bosses for their salaries. In the case of CEO's, there is often collusion between executives and the people holding the purse strings to raise their salaries as high as possible. At least with professional sports there is some level of antagonism between parties. So you agree that having a powerful voice in negotiating compensation with "the people holding the purse strings" is more likely to lead to a fair(er) share of the profits of the corporation (and sports are corporations), and that the players unions means that it is more equitably shared with all the players? But then we come to the star players. Are they exploiting the system to get more than other players? What's a fair share? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I have deliberately not been using corporations or employers as examples. I have been strictly using examples of employees who can demand and get large compensation without exploiting other workers. Yet I am drawing "but Walmart" response. Possibly because a special case is not representative of the whole situation. Would you agree that the special case of workers at Walmart would be better off if they could "demand and get large compensation without exploiting other workers" ... like those at Costco do? Can we extrapolate from this that the more a democratic system is used to determine who shares how much of the profits, the less likely any of the people involved will be exploited becomes? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Rrhain writes: Exactly how would adjusting our fiscal policy to redirect the use of those profits to be back into the company rather than the shareholders be against "capitalism"? Because if you don't allow profits to be given back to owners, they won't make the investments necessary to create and grow companies. What if the owners are the workers? What if the shareholders are the workers? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
I don't think I said you should be limited to what you need. That's the minimum that you "deserve".
Using your definition, no matter how many hours I work, I "deserve" only that which I need. NoNukes writes:
You couldn't have got farther from my position if you worked at it 25 hours a day. The idea that you don't even own, let alone value your own or labor, which is inherent in the position you are pushing.... Of course you own your labour. What you don't own is an infinite amount of resources in exchange for your labour. Even if people are willing to pay, you don't "deserve" more. There ought to be a better way than hoarding to recognize exceptional contributions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I don't think I said you should be limited to what you need. That's the minimum that you "deserve". Fair enough ringo. I did misread you. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Profit is what is made AFTER payments to employees. Profit is shared with the owners of the company, not the employees of the company. Profit is what is left after all payments are made. But isn't this really just leaning on definitions rather than policy? If the employees are paid a percentage of revenue minus non-employee costs, and profit is what is left over, how would that scheme be different from profit-sharing as far as the shareholders are concerned? Shareholders invest when the return is sufficient. If employees are also getting a cut, the shareholders might still invest as long as the shareholder's portion is high enough. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
RAZD writes: I find it exceedingly curious that people are happy and proud to have thrown off the yoke of feudal style (king run) government for a democratic style government, but are happy to embrace being serfs in a feudal style corporation. Like the use of the word 'theft' earlier I don't think there's much mileage to be had trying to compare salaried employees to serfs wearing yokes etc, it's a cartoon view.
Whenever we talk about different countries and their governments it seems that the degree of democracy and voice that the people have is equated to relative freedom and liberty and good things they have. Yet whenever we talk about companies, the degree of democracy and voice that the workers have is not considered important. I guess that's because a we can all cast a vote but we can't all design an iPhone. But also companies are a function of the societies they operate in - give a company an unregulated free reign and you get inequality; regulate pay, conditions and trade and you get fairer societies. Don't blame companies blame the societies the operate in.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
RAZD writes: And why does this not hold true for the sweat-equity investors in the company? Because economics don't work that way. Sweat is cheap and easy to buy.
Are there two kinds of people, elites and peons? You're resorting to emotive caricatures again. Thers are many kinds of people with varying wealth
Can the company succeed and grow without the workers? No.Can the company succeed and grow without the investors? Yes. Self-evidently wrong.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024