Executive Pay - Good Capitalism Bad Capitalism?

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?Enjoy

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?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

What if the owners are the workers?What if the shareholders are the workers?Enjoy

Your biases are showing.

quote:

---

Cooperative

​

Research published by the Worldwatch Institute found that in 2012 approximately one billion people in 96 countries had become members of at least one cooperative.[2] The turnover of the largest three hundred cooperatives in the world reached $2.2 trillion — which, if they were to be a country, it would make them the seventh largest.[3]

​

... Cooperative businesses are typically more economically resilient than many other forms of enterprise, with twice the number of co-operatives (80%) surviving their first five years compared with other business ownership models (41%).[5] ...

​

In the United States of America

​

In a 2007 study by the World Council of Credit Unions, the 5 year survival rate of cooperatives in the United States was found to be 90% in comparison to 3-5% for traditional businesses.[35]

​

New generation cooperatives (NGCs) are an adaptation of traditional cooperative structures to modern, capital intensive industries. They are sometimes described as a hybrid between traditional co-ops and limited liability companies or public benefit corporations. They were first developed in California and spread and flourished in the US Mid-West in the 1990s.[37] They are now common in Canada where they operate primarily in agriculture and food services, where their primary purpose is to add value to primary products. For example, producing ethanol from corn, pasta from durum wheat, or gourmet cheese from goat’s milk. A representative example of an operating NGC is the Fourth Estate (association), a multi-stakeholder NGC journalism association.

---

Now that could be due to all the workers being committed to the success of the company instead of just the owner ... or it could be due to consumers supporting their community organizations instead of remote corporations ...Or it could be due to the co-op being a better model to realize the goal of the entity.Or it could be that workers are tired of oligarchic corporations. Several co-ops have risen from the ashes of a failed company.Enjoy

And yet people are starving and living in poverty due to capitalism run amok.It's properly called hyperbole, where the argument is purposefully overstated to get people out of the shallow box they are in. No, it's a function of how they operate within the social structure. Your "regulation" elements are historically temporary at best. As long as oligarchic sociopathic corporations exist they will keep trying to chip away at them. Glass Steagall for example.Enjoy

Again with the elitist attitude to workers. They don't deserve anything because they are cheap?Doesn't apply to co-ops ... so not a truism. You're resorting to emotive caricatures here. Sometimes you need to get out of your shallow box thinking. And the wealth gap just keeps growing ... Curiously, there are existing example of businesses operating and growing without investors, and I know of no company that operates with no workers.Again your thinking is biased.Enjoy

False. Costco pays workers more, has the same prices as Walmart. What they don't have is the Waltons. Again, you are blinded by your preconceptions. Again Costco v Walmart proves you wrong.Co-ops go toe to toe with oligarchist companies in the marketplace and provide products at the same price while paying employees more, because they share.Enjoy

So sayeth the willing subservient serf to the smiling king.Guess you're not a big fan of democracy ... but wait ...Why couldn't the "motherfucker in charge" be democratically elected by the people in the company? Isn't that how representative democracies work?Enjoy

So you appear to think you get a fair (enough) share.Side note: I wonder how much that satisfaction is due to knowing you get more wages than people working minimum wage.

quote:

---

Lyndon Johnson quote

​

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -Lyndon B. Johnson

​

A lot of American economic and social policy can be read using this Rosetta stone. The entirety of the conservative/libertarian economic strategy of transfering the social burden of the rich to the middle class and poor is to get them to demonize, as Paul Krugman put it, "those people", and blind them about their own increasingly exploited situation.

---

Seems to me this also goes to how people feel about their wages relative to the minimum wage. You pay comes out of overhead, which is taken out of gross returns to result in net returns, eg - profit.The larger your share is, the higher the overhead is, and if gross returns is not increased to compensate (raising prices), then it reduces net returns and profit. So it does come out of profit. Only if (a) your pay is large enough to leave you with the discretionary money (wages above living costs) to afford the stock and (b) if there is stock available to buy (not all companies issue stock).Would I be right in assuming you have some investments (IRA, savings, mutual funds, etc)? That gives you future security (that people on minimum wage don't have) and a feeling (satisfaction) that you are getting somewhere in the economy. You just aren't tied to how well the company succeeds the way people that earn a share of the profit in a co-op do. Nice ascii graphic.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

And before the American Revolution, the number of countries that were democratic was a minority of the forms of government in the world. Things have changed since then, things are changing now.The first reaction to oligarchic company operation was worker unions, workers coming together to cooperate and provide better returns for their members by having a stronger voice in negotiations with the owners.Unions are democratic cooperatives with elected leaders. Because of unions we have ...

quote:

---

Time Offanother Reason to Be Thankful for Unions

​

As Labor Day approaches, working Americans, both union and non-union, have a long list of reasons to thank the labor movement--including these that give workers the right to paid and unpaid leave.

​

1. Weekends Off: Massive union strikes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries led to shorter work weeks with weekends off. This allowed Americans to be home with loved ones instead of constantly working.
2. Paid Vacations: With summer coming to a close, take time to thank your union for the paid vacation time that made it possible to rest and relax with your family.
3. Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA): Unions spearheaded the fight that resulted in the passage of this law that gives eligible employees the right to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave annually for family and medical reasons.
4. Breaks at WorkIncluding Lunch: Although they are now federally mandated, breaks haven't always been an employee right. Studies have shown, breaks provide important rest periods that improve safety and productivity.
5. Sick Leave: Without paid sick leave, many workers couldn't afford to take the time necessary to recover from illnesses and accidents.
6. Paid Holidays: Labor Day is one of nine paid holidays offered by most employers in the U.S. As you spend time with family and friends this Labor Day, thank your union.
7. Military Leave: The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ensures those that serve their country can keep civilian employment and benefits, and seek employment free from discrimination.
8. 40-hour Work Week: Americans once worked 60 hours a week or more. It wasn't until the 1950's that 40-hour work weeks and 8-hour work days became standard across America thanks to union negotiations.

---

You can also include child labor laws and minimum wage laws.Just for starters.Still think cooperatives are an inconsequential share of the economy? Really?

quote:

---

History of the cooperative movement (wiki)

​

The history of the cooperative movement concerns the origins and history of cooperatives. Although cooperative arrangements, such as mutual insurance, and principles of cooperation existed long before, the cooperative movement began with the application of cooperative principles to business organization.

​

The cooperative movement began in Europe in the 19th century, primarily in Britain and France, although The Shore Porters Society claims to be one of the world's first cooperatives, being established in Aberdeen in 1498 (although it has since demutualized to become a private partnership).[1] The industrial revolution and the increasing mechanism of the economy transformed society and threatened the livelihoods of many workers. The concurrent labour and social movements and the issues they attempted to address describe the climate at the time.

​

The first documented consumer cooperative was founded in 1769,[2] in a barely furnished cottage in Fenwick, East Ayrshire, when local weavers manhandled a sack of oatmeal into John Walker's whitewashed front room and began selling the contents at a discount, forming the Fenwick Weavers' Society.

​

In the decades that followed, several cooperatives or cooperative societies formed including Lennoxtown Friendly Victualling Society, founded in 1812.[3]

​

By 1830, there were several hundred co-operatives.[4] Some were initially successful, but most cooperatives founded in the early 19th century had failed by 1840.[5] However, Lockhurst Lane Industrial Co-operative Society (founded in 1832 and now Heart of England Co-operative Society), and Galashiels and Hawick Co-operative Societies (1839 or earlier, merged with The Co-operative Group) still trade today.[6][7]

​

It was not until 1844 when the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers established the "Rochdale Principles" on which they ran their cooperative, that the basis for development and growth of the modern cooperative movement was established.[8]

​

Financially, cooperative banks, called credit unions in the US, were invented in Germany in the mid-19th century, first by Franz Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch (1852, urban), then by Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen (1864, rural). While Schulze-Delitzsch is chronologically earlier, Raiffeisen has proven more influential over time — see history of credit unions. In Britain, the friendly society, building society, and mutual savings bank were earlier forms of similar institutions.

---

So I guess the USA has been around forever ... What's stopping unions.Education and awareness of workers, lower-class and middle-class, that there is a better way. The American Revolution didn't happen spontaneously.Enjoy

Not so much revolution as evolution. Revolution has the disadvantage of leaving a power vacuum leading to things like the French Revolution aftermath and ISIS.Social evolution on the other hand changes power system with adaptations -- the union general strikes, women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, ... very American. We have. FD Roosevelt was the most popular president because of social policies he got enacted. The last on his list was a new bill of rights for further social programs, like health. And this is an evolving situation. We certainly have better health care under the ACA than before, and there certainly is still work to do, but that's not because people don't want it, it's because rich people/corporations don't want to lose their obscene profits buying votes of corrupt congress members. Try me.Enjoy

For you, but not for everyone. Certainly not for anyone working at minimum wage. Certainly not for anyone working for a company that does not issue stock (most small businesses). Your privilege is showing. Again, people working minimum wage who don't have those privileges. I know you're full of shit when you have to resort to personal insults.[/qs]So not so much a serf/peasant/laborer, but still a vassal in the feudal hierarchy, happy to be given a position above the lowly worker struggling to live on minimum wage. On what? Your place in the feudal hierarchy of the business?Enjoy

Curiously, what I am for is equality of opportunity. Opportunity to education, opportunity for work, that isn't lumbered by institutionalized racism/biases and poverty vs privileges white males enjoy compared to all other workers.Not just because it is more equitable for people but because there is no guarantee that the white male necessarily represents the best the workforce etc has to offer. Case in point, the epitome of white male privilege, President Pedophile.Enjoy

Yes. Tuition free state education. First community college or trade school, followed by higher education for those that want to pursue it. The community college path would mean not needing freshman year at state university. The community colleges would also provide the education needed for technician type occupations. The trade schools would mean a supply of plumbers, electricians, mechanics, etc. and a career path to solid middle class occupations.Privilege is a bit harder to deal with. It's more of an awareness issue. For instance I went to Duke, and freshman engineering had 3 blacks and two women in the program. I find it extremely difficult to believe that this was due to natural ability. Better education and job opportunities should tend to counter this over time.Enjoy

Several people I know have used this path. They get an associate degree and then enter state university with advanced placement. I have not seen any problems getting in, particularly as the universities lose students every year and can use these people to refill the ranks. This may work well enough for associate degrees and the like, but I hardly think it is capable of providing the hands-on experience needed for many scientists. I've done correspondance school and found it tedious and slow, so I transfered into a residential program (for my 3rd degree).Enjoy