A regulator fix?

[88chaz88]

Thank god... who wants to live in a communist country?

The Vietnamese are doing pretty well out of it.

If a CEO is responsible for millions of dollars of money, man power, and resources, he should have an incentive to be the best.

He's responsible for hiring people to be responsible for other people, that's all. Anyway what's stopping him from putting the rest of the money into the business?

Pros to the big fat CEO are:

More assets.
A more powerful company.
Better paid and more motivated employees.

Cons:

No more solid gold yacht and a wage packet larger than the GDP of most third world countries.

I think that 10x is a bit limiting since after all these guys are in charge of a lot more than just 10x the lowest paid employee, but having a limit like this isn't such a bad idea for all involved.

 

[burnt by the sun]

I am so tired of the argument that CEOs need to be paid these ridiculous wages for incentive to do their job. "We'll, if I'm not a billionaire by next year I might just tank the whole company on purpose." Seriously? The power and prestige isn't enough?
Well, you know psychologists have recently found that 1% of the world population and 4% of business leaders are clinically psychopathic... so I guess nothing's ever enough.

I just choose to not support companies with ridiculous pay inequities.

Lovin' the locked pay idea. But I think that companies should adopt that on their own volition... 'cause even though I'm a socialist, I recognize that in the current political climate, there would be WAY to much bitching and moaning on the surface ('cause it's just for the sake of swaying public opinion). And corporations own the governments anyway.

BUT IF companies decide to follow an economically fair pay scale, and are very open about it, consumers will find that very attractive, then ethical companies might become more common. There are successful worker-owned companies out there, which get me very hopeful.

If any positive changes are going to happen for economic equality, it's definitely not coming from the current political system. But it could come from the people and the better businesses.

Swoon... I love discussions like this. Thanks everybody.

 

[Billy]

The Vietnamese are doing pretty well out of it.

Yeah, if you call living in straw huts anywhere outside of a city "well"... i guess so. They are doing well for a 3rd world mud bowl. Almost caught up to the standard of living before the communists took over DECADES ago.

He's responsible for hiring people to be responsible for other people, that's all. Anyway what's stopping him from putting the rest of the money into the business?

Yeah thats all they do... I mean look at Steve Jobs. He just sits in an office all day and hires people and fires people, especially poor people who's houses are in foreclosure.

Cons:

No more solid gold yacht and a wage packet larger than the GDP of most third world countries.

I think that 10x is a bit limiting since after all these guys are in charge of a lot more than just 10x the lowest paid employee, but having a limit like this isn't such a bad idea for all involved.

Says you, when in reality its none of your business how a company pays its workers from the top to the bottom. Especially if its a private company.

When you have children (if) one day how would you like it if some dipstick came in and required you to pay him or her 150 bucks a week in allowance for taking out the trash and keeping their room clean, because you make 100X more then them?

 

[88chaz88]

Says you, when in reality its none of your business how a company pays its workers from the top to the bottom. Especially if its a private company.

Most private company CEOs can't pay themselves ridiculous amounts. It's the public companies that make the big bucks.

When you have children (if) one day how would you like it if some dipstick came in and required you to pay him or her 150 bucks a week in allowance for taking out the trash and keeping their room clean, because you make 100X more then them?

My children wouldn't be employed by me.

 

[Billy]

Most private company CEOs can't pay themselves ridiculous amounts. It's the public companies that make the big bucks.



My children wouldn't be employed by me.

By private I meant not government, you know that stop trying to be slick.

And for the sake of argument answer the question.

 

[88chaz88]

By private I meant not government, you know that stop trying to be slick.

No I didn't, private company to me is one that's privately owned whereas public companies are a different matter altogether.

And for the sake of argument answer the question.

If you mean your last question then I already did answer it.

 

[Billy]

No I didn't, private company to me is one that's privately owned whereas public companies are a different matter altogether.



If you mean your last question then I already did answer it.

More dodges, very artful but ultimately obvious. A private company is a company that is not owned or subsidized by the government. And feel free to answer the previous question within the promoters of the example and stop doding.

 

[burnt by the sun]

private company to me is one that's privately owned whereas public companies are a different matter altogether.

Billy, I think by "public companies" he means publicly traded... listed in the stock exchange.