Do executives deserve the majority of their company's output?

[Thatsright19]

Originally Posted by ddeemo

How would import certificates drive wages to $15/hr or have any impact on executive wages - Import certificates are just a different form of tariffs drive up costs of goods imported.

Trump used tariffs to negotiate concessions with China, import certificates would put tariffs on everything imported. The end result is mainly increasing cost of goods in the US, impacting the minimum wage worker the most.

The Dems campaigned that Trump's tariffs on China were bad but wants to add "carbon" taxes to US production and "carbon" tariffs to foreign production of goods based on "green" policy. Trump's tariffs has resulted in concessions from China and have now been reduced, a good use of targeted tariffs.

It was an inside joke.

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

I don't, I think companies should be worker run democratically since they are the ones who keep the company operating, not the ones who manage the capital.

Some are (co-ops). It's definitely one model among many others that seems to be sustainable, and I'm inclined to say, all else equal, gives workers more of a say in the operations of the company. With traditional/top-down corporate structure, the workers have near zero power unless they unionize.

[artillery77]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

I don't, I think companies should be worker run democratically since they are the ones who keep the company operating, not the ones who manage the capital.

Actually the owners control the capital. They charge the executives to execute orders of what they want done with that capital and the executives hire workers to actually put said plan into place.

As to the title question, most of the company's output is transferred on to a buying customer, whose payments are then used to pay the executives, employees, vendors and suppliers that helped bring that successful order into reality. Each of which has legally contracted and agreed to an amount of compensation to do their part. The only one offered no guarantees are the owners. So an owner will naturally want an executive that they believe will be able to get them a higher return on their capital.

Nobody starts out an executive. They arrive into that role after years of mastering multiple trades. They take significant risks to themselves when they become an executive. If they fail tremendously, they may never work again. Further, well run companies can promote talent from within if the owners are satisfied with how things are developing. The turnover rate is much less. There is less risk and sometimes less compensation. However, it is the poorly run company that is most in need of a talented executive. This can lead to some odd looking things.

Plus, there is a limited pool of talent of executives who can run large organizations. Even if I offered the late Steve Jobs 100% of my income to run my lemonade stand, he could go to other companies and make more. I would not have nearly the same pricing pressure on finding someone to mix the ingredients.

So what ends up happening is that you have instances where higher paid executives are managing smaller, less profitable companies that their peer groups. However, like professional football players, these executives inherently know that if they do not deliver results in a very difficult environment, their career will be short.

This is often missed entirely in the socialist mentality. If the government were to, say nationalize healthcare, it would have overnight created the largest entity in the world. Who in their right mind could they possibly get to run it...especially if offering a government wage?

So executives may receive an outsized wage, but there are many variables into that number. Generally speaking, these are individuals that, if not given a good wage, could instead opt to start their own company and derive their income through ownership as opposed to wages....which is in reality what you see. Most executive compensation stems from stock options and grants that only become worth something if the stock price improves. When the eventual sale occurs, an executive feasts, such as Elon Musk having made more money than Tesla has from Tesla. If the reality of the situation is that a company rebound is unlikely to occur, the executive will demand more in upfront compensation.

If one is unhappy with their lot in life, they should endeavor to understand how to improve it, not have a governmental entity wave a magic wand.

[RF4CV]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Fortifying the dextrose coherence leads to applicable inherent of explicable tolerance; therefore, we should not accept this proposal, so, of course, their requests for subsidies was not Paraguayan in and of it is as it were the United States government would never have if the president, our president, had not and as far as I know that's the way it will always be. Is that clear?

For those of you that want this cleared up, here's what it means.
Strengthing someone's consistency when they do hands-on activities leads to applications of the results with examples containing properties inherent to explicit tolerance; therefore, we should not accept this proposal. The request for subsidies was not made by Paraguayans per se. The US would never have made such a request either if the President did not consent, and that's the way it will always be. Is that clear?

[Themanwithnoname]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

Revolutionary Catalonia was destroyed by an alliance of the fascists, republicans, and Stalinist forces in 1939.

As for the zapitistas, they are geared towards the indigenous Mexican community, something I'm not.

What I'd wish for is a global socialist world where larger economies can't destroy smaller socialist ones through sanctions and keeping them out of the global supply chain. Right now most communal living areas are poor because they don't have international trade as they don't operate by the (authoritarian) principles of capitalism.

What I can do in the meanwhile is support worker cooperatives (many of which exist in this country, especially in red states), start my own, help pass socialist policy, and work to change the country I live in.

I'm rooted here and the only thing I can do is support the only voluntary system that allows for actual freedom, not the decentralized authoritarian model we have today where all the means of production are privately owned and labor is organized for the benefit of a few individuals.

In the future I hope syndicates of different unions can form to represent the needs of the workers and society, not the needs of a few authoritarian leaders. Input=Output.

I need some money.

I vote you send me all of yours.

Since my vote counts as much as yours.... I am entitled to it.

PS: I expect more next month.