Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's required is a healthy balance. The interests of people should always trump those of corporations. Full stop. A company is not worth a single human life, no matter how much it makes or how many people it employs.
I'm for a free market, but only with regulations. As was stated, there have to be stringent rules and boundaries, otherwise you get monopolistic behavior and the whole corporate overlord thing.
A free market should be based solely on merit and healthy competition, respect and the sharing of wealth for those that help to make the company what it is, not greedy hoarding of profits, moving the operation offshore to improve said profits at the expense of the very people that made the company what it is. This is why I am pro profit sharing. A corporation is only as strong as the people that make it what it is. Therefore, if a company makes record profits, it should share them with the very people that made that record profit possible.
CEOs once earned only 4 times that of the average worker. That percentage is now 300% more. Unfair. It was the workers, after all, that made the CEO look good. Their ideas. Their labor. Their patent ideas.
Strong oversight levels the playing field for true competition and forbids underhanded tactics, laws favoring one over another. I firmly believe laws governing corporations should be federal, not state, thereby preventing favorable outcomes for one over another. Compete on merit alone, nothing else.
Singapore is an example of strong regulation yet healthy competition.
Right! Germany is another good example of how free market capitalism and tough regulations and rights for workers go hand-in-hand and actually lead to better productivity.
This whole thing reminds me of the recent appointment of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The right was so intent on preventing his appointment because they hate oversight. They want to be able to screw people over with no possible backlash. Without oversight and protection, everyone suffers but the corporate overlords.
Compete on merit alone or take your ball and go home.
A free market should be based solely on merit and healthy competition, respect and the sharing of wealth for those that help to make the company what it is, not greedy hoarding of profits, moving the operation offshore to improve said profits at the expense of the very people that made the company what it is. This is why I am pro profit sharing. A corporation is only as strong as the people that make it what it is. Therefore, if a company makes record profits, it should share them with the very people that made that record profit possible.
CEOs once earned only 4 times that of the average worker. That percentage is now 300% more. Unfair. It was the workers, after all, that made the CEO look good. Their ideas. Their labor. Their patent ideas.
I agree with most of what you said except for the two paragraphs quoted above.
I don't feel the government should have any say in what people do with their money. How they spend it, etc.
So you are saying that the CEO compensation went from 400% (4 time the average worker) to 700% (400% + 300%). That doesn't seem unreasonable given the CEO was able to convince someone to pay him that much. If the average worker was able to convince people to pay them that much, I'm all for it.
What's really stupid and mega-hypocritical are those on the right side of the political spectrum whining about the government invading on their privacy, yet have no problem defending measures that literally force people to choose between a lifeline (a job) or sacrificing their privacy, when it isn't necessary (e.g. credit checks or demanding that a candidate be on that LinkedIn nonsense, a site with known security issues and breaches).
Either you believe in people's right to privacy or you don't. It doesn't matter whether it's the government or a private entity. Neither need to have my details plastered all over the web and neither needs to know about my credit, unless I am applying for a loan or mortgage.
It's about choice. You have choice with a corporation. You don't have to work for them. But you don't have a choice with the government. Although, I'm not complaining about the government... don't get me wrong. I don't have any concerns about the government's involvement in my life in terms of privacy. I am, however, concerned about how I see very little benefit of the tax dollars I paid.
This is getting offtopic and political. I don't like to discuss politics here.
Anyhoo, back to the original premise of privacy. Privacy laws are not even close to being strict enough. HIPPA, SOX, and a whole host of other laws merely scratch the surface on what needs to happen to corporation should they violate privacy, financial laws, etc. I firmly believe if a corporation is found willfully negligent, they should be dissolved. This is the only measure by which they will comply. Same for being found to be willfully and forcefully monopolistic. CEOs of lawbreaking companies should not haver parachute packages. They should end up like the workers they screwed. Their bank accounts should be frozen and their assets seized, much like what happened to the WorldCom, Enron, Tyco guys.
It's not hard to play nice. It's not hard to value privacy over profit. Just do it. Value people over profits.
Anyhoo, back to the original premise of privacy. Privacy laws are not even close to being strict enough. HIPPA, SOX, and a whole host of other laws merely scratch the surface on what needs to happen to corporation should they violate privacy, financial laws, etc. I firmly believe if a corporation is found willfully negligent, they should be dissolved. This is the only measure by which they will comply. Same for being found to be willfully and forcefully monopolistic. CEOs of lawbreaking companies should not haver parachute packages. They should end up like the workers they screwed. Their bank accounts should be frozen and their assets seized, much like what happened to the WorldCom, Enron, Tyco guys.
It's not hard to play nice. It's not hard to value privacy over profit. Just do it. Value people over profits.
So if the CEO screws the company, the company should be dissolved and everyone should be laid off? There's a lot of productivity value left in an organization even after someone on top has done something wrong.
It's about choice. You have choice with a corporation. You don't have to work for them. But you don't have a choice with the government. Although, I'm not complaining about the government... don't get me wrong. I don't have any concerns about the government's involvement in my life in terms of privacy. I am, however, concerned about how I see very little benefit of the tax dollars I paid.
This is getting offtopic and political. I don't like to discuss politics here.
If virtually all employers start insisting on credit checks and having your personal information stored on some website, then the only choice for the vast majority of people is to 1) sell your soul to the devil and submit to the employers' demands or 2) keep your privacy, but remain unemployed. That isn't a choice. It's like saying "You have a choice whether to breathe or stop breathing". What concerns me is that this is becoming the norm, thus more employers are engaging in these tactics.
Unfortunately, it does boil down to politics, because as the electorate, we have the power to take to the streets and demand that our government take heed and make changes to existing laws, or create new ones to ensure that people are not put in a position where they feel pressured to given up their privacy for some faceless, ruthless corporation.
I don't feel the government should have any say in what people do with their money. How they spend it, etc.
A corporation, despite recent opinion, is not a "person". It's common sense and just the right thing to share with those who made you what you are. This is the reason I like credit unions not banks. A corporation should be owned by all concerned. Employee-owned corporations are transparent as everyone is dependent on everyone else doing the right thing. A co-op if you will.
A CEO should not make orders of magnitude more than the people that make him look good. This is the ugly side of capitalism. A CEO's salary should reflect his/her performance, nothing less or more. Same for employees. An employee should have a base salary and a reasonable performance reward. This is how it's done in much of the world. Those who show promise and really move the company forward with genuine assistance should be moved up, but there should be limits. A CEO's salary should rise or fall based on performance. No parachute packages if they are terminated from the company. They are employees like everyone else. I really dislike the CEO worship that happens in much of the world. They are treated like so many cult overlords.
So if the CEO screws the company, the company should be dissolved and everyone should be laid off? There's a lot of productivity value left in an organization even after someone on top has done something wrong.
Look at Enron, WorldCom, Tyco. A predatory company should be dissolved. Period. We take predatory people off the street, right? Since corporations have been designated "people", they should fall under the same restrictions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
