If you own the company you can run it however you want. If I owned Ford and decided to tomorrow to drive it into the ground, that's my right to do so, because I OWN IT BUT if you're getting a bailout from the gov then yes the gov should have some say in how the company runs
Everyone wants there business to do well but you shouldn't be penalized if you fall on hard times unless your getting gov bailouts
It's not that, many businesses around the world that have already failed would of failed anyway, but before they go under, and the banks regain whatever they can, the CEOs and Share Holders might aswell take as much raw money out of the company as they can before it goes under, it's common sense, and anyone in that position would do the same. Many people do it with bankruptcy also, it's a popular method to take advantage of a bad time, because you might as well.
I work to please the shareholders of my company. I am a tool to the larger model, I am disposable and not that important to anyone. I am a number to the machine of economics. Once I understood this, I respected the fact of the boss more so then the fact that I thought was more important then the boss. I know my job, I know my place, and I know I am not going to be in it forever just because of the facts stated above. I will work harder to make my own business, or job, better for me. Cause my job will not ever get me what I really want out of it economically (current job). Its impossible for a company to pay its base employees huge sums, it would fail in a hear beat. By the way, I work at Wal-Mart. Sam walton was a friggen genius.
That's incorrect, because a CEO does not own a company. A CEO is appointed by the shareholders to manage the day-to-day operations of the company, and is entrusted by them to increase the value of their stock. Only in a privately-owned company does the head (who would usually be the President of the company) own it.
No, you can't. You have a large say in the operation, and in who gets to run it for you. But you still have to respect the other 49%.
Best idea i've heard is to cap the top person's pay to a max multiple of the lowest person's pay in the same company. Stops the management pay level getting ridiculous and also encourages better pay for the lowliest people in the company. win-win situation if you ask me
Surely that would penalise the larger companies though? Ford for example will employ many people on minimum wage, whereas a small engineering firm may be able to pay it's workers more then minimum. In this scenario the smaller firm would be able to pay its exec's more? RwD
People with multi million salaries either have a lot of responsibility in their job, or are particularly skilled at their job. Id be happy earning less than this for the QoL gain I get from it
I think one of the main reasons bail out money is spent on bonuses & high wages is because if it wasn't then all the best people would leave the company and join one that will pay them the bonuses, making all that bail out money completely useless anyway. The best in the business aren't free - a company has to spend money on them just like they spend money on the best advertising or the best offices.
You can also argue that if the company *needs* a bailout it didn't have the best people anyway, no great loss if you lose the people who caused the company to nearly fail
Trying to limit salaries or/and income is the best way to communism (yeah CEO's/ businessmen / top Dj's/ top sportsmen and other people who get payed 0.5 million and more - are exactly the same people, like homeless junkies or other crap LOL), and believe me you won't like the consequences (i lived in that s**t). In Europe or US - anyone who good enough + really wants it + works hard enough - can be very well payed. Hell, even in this s**t-hole called Ukraine, people who aren't lazy & stupid can make a good enough living (that is if "living in Ukraine" & "make a good enough living" are not opposite, lol). Frankly speaking, the big number of people that understand free-market concept in Bit-tech community (something like a representative of "Western" countries) is a good indicator that says why your countries are called "developed" and countries like Ukraine (thread like this in a ukraine computer forum would be like a communist-anarhist-alcaholic-moron party meeting, with replays like "kill em all", "lets rob them & split their money", "this is all a ZOG conspiracy", "Damn, thouse jews" & don't forget the classic "Death to America") are called "under-developed" or if we speak politicaly correct "developing" countries (damn, it's developing slow - twenty years from the fall of USSR & we're still in the middle of nowhere).
RE: "Highest salary is limited to a multiple of the lowest salary" The way most companies work is that you come in at an entry level position, and if you're very good at it, they give you additional responsibilities, and eventually a better job. If you're mediocre at it, they keep you there. Companies shouldn't have to pay their mediocre or unskilled workers more than the going rate just so that the executives can make a decent amount.
it true, but it isn't realy that simple - it depends on the corporate law in the country. Don't forget about different laws that protect minority shareholders.
