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.
This is a privately held company so you wouldn't find any financial information about it online. I did erroneously say "CEO" when I should have said "owner." I'm not going to name the company, because the CFO, my friend who works there, would be furious at me for giving out such details online. So it's understandable if you don't want to believe my example.
Apple CEO makes 337million, eh? That's the kind of money most humans can't even fathom! One hundred mill, two hundred mill, three hundred mill......do those vast sums of money even feel any different??? I mean, once you get to a certain point, how ya ever gonna spend it? Maybe a few extra private islands, what?? I believe a good CEO should be "well" compensated, but to me this is beyond ridiculous. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Why is it ridiculous? If the CEO can make the company generate profit beyond 337 million, there's nothing wrong with it. If he or she can't, he or she would be out of job very fast.
The people who own the Corporation -- the stockholders -- could certainly vote to limit CEO salaries to say $200,000 or something and then pay workers more than they are actually worth, except the people wouldn't make any money, because they wouldn't be able to hire competent people to properly manage the Capital of the Corporation and maximize profits.
And the workers? They'd end up losing their jobs.
Mircea
I admit that business is not my area of expertise, so I would humbly ask if you could further elaborate on the part of your quote above which I highlighted. Thank you.
A common mindset that I find on these forums is that the general working public isn't all that important and that the emphasis should be focused on CEO's and "job creators". Well If labor is so expendable and job creators are just doing everyone some kind of big favor, why don't these job creators do all the work? Why don't the heads of WAL-MART spend some time in their jeans factories? Why don't the owners of NIKE make their own shoes?
The simple and short answer is obviously that a hand full of people can't do all that work. It literally takes millions of people to create the majority of goods we consume. So the wealth generated by production DEPENDS on labor, meaning that the wealthiest of the wealthy could have only got where they are via someone else doing the work.
So how is it that we can justify "job creators" having all the wealth, while the people who make so little they have to apply for food stamps are the ones doing all the actual work?
Labor is a commodity. The price is set by the marketplace. The "job creators" tell the market "I need labor and I am willing to pay this much for you to do this job description". Then the "workers" get to accept or refuse that offer. If they accept, they go to work for the agreed upon wage. If they eventually decide they don't like the wage, they can ask for more, and if they are refused, they can quit and go work for someone else that is offering more.
Or they can start their own gotdamn company and put out a competing product or service and compete with their evil, fat cat, greedy, former whip-cracking, slave-driving CEO (that evil greedy bastard!).
This is what is known as "free market capitalism". What you seem to advocate is command economy communism.
Modern corporations are the essence of command economies.
A common mindset that I find on these forums is that the general working public isn't all that important and that the emphasis should be focused on CEO's and "job creators". Well If labor is so expendable and job creators are just doing everyone some kind of big favor, why don't these job creators do all the work? Why don't the heads of WAL-MART spend some time in their jeans factories? Why don't the owners of NIKE make their own shoes?
The simple and short answer is obviously that a hand full of people can't do all that work. It literally takes millions of people to create the majority of goods we consume. So the wealth generated by production DEPENDS on labor, meaning that the wealthiest of the wealthy could have only got where they are via someone else doing the work.
So how is it that we can justify "job creators" having all the wealth, while the people who make so little they have to apply for food stamps are the ones doing all the actual work?
This is typical thinking for adolescents.....especially for those of you who have no mature person in your lives to bounce these things off of.
There are some jobs that even poor people pay someone else to do for them. This is because when you weigh the value of the labor vs. your value spent elsewhere, you pay others to do certain things for you.
A CEO's time is better spent looking for ways to make more profit, or investing more into the business.
The person making pants trades their time doing that for the money they earn to pay for other needs that they have.
Oh BS. And he had options, when the CEOs, corporations and rich have the U.S. by the neck and are artificially keeping wages down because THEY CAN? And you bet they want to!
There is no possible way to artificially keep wages down. That's like trying to condense water.
It has been awhile since anyone has studied from the "Communist Manifesto" (by Karl Marx and Friederich Engles). It's kinda' retro!
I prefer Hayek and Bastiat.
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.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
