It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ethics of Capitalism

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I think part of the issue is the "security" of working for large companies even if they don't have competitive pay or the greatest work environment. Since 2008/2009 we've been bombarded with this idea that there aren't jobs out there and so most people cling to what they have regardless of how crappy it may be.

I directly confronted our CEO a few years ago and basically asked him "what's in it for us?" when he came out to give his annual "do more with less" speech. But ultimately the work load increased disproportionately to the pay because most everyone, myself included, is paralyzed (and therefore powerless) to the point of not being willing to leave.




posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox
My experience at a small company was that our leadership's motivation was not profit, but rather the sustainability of the company itself, and thereby the jobs of those who worked there. They wanted to keep the employees happy to keep them around to ensure that the business could go on... we had great benefits and an excellent work/life balance.

Perhaps it was a unique experience in that the owner of the place was actually a decent human being, which I can't say the same about many other corporate type people.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: xenthuin
a reply to: Edumakated

I think part of the issue is the "security" of working for large companies even if they don't have competitive pay or the greatest work environment. Since 2008/2009 we've been bombarded with this idea that there aren't jobs out there and so most people cling to what they have regardless of how crappy it may be.

I directly confronted our CEO a few years ago and basically asked him "what's in it for us?" when he came out to give his annual "do more with less" speech. But ultimately the work load increased disproportionately to the pay because most everyone, myself included, is paralyzed (and therefore powerless) to the point of not being willing to leave.



Exactly this. If someone is on a low wage it is very difficult to build up sufficient savings to cover even a short period without pay.

That makes it very difficult to leave a secure job regardless of how badly paid or treated you are.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

In Utopia, sure, there's always a better paying job somewhere else. In reality, not so much.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: xenthuin
a reply to: JoshuaCox
My experience at a small company was that our leadership's motivation was not profit, but rather the sustainability of the company itself, and thereby the jobs of those who worked there. They wanted to keep the employees happy to keep them around to ensure that the business could go on... we had great benefits and an excellent work/life balance.

Perhaps it was a unique experience in that the owner of the place was actually a decent human being, which I can't say the same about many other corporate type people.


Even in the cases like where you mentioned, they still pay less than they should, because they have to compete with those who are raping and pillaging...

So even the good ones know they can't pay more and still compete with competitors.. so it is a vicious circle with them constantly cutting labor..

You can't make materials cost less, but you can always find some one who is a little more desperate and willing to work for less.


I think it is wall street that is killing us..

Stocks require a buisness to always make MORE money than last year, To pay those who brought stock this year. So no amount of profit is ever enough...



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Is capitalism an oxymoron of ethics??

No...

But is ethics anywhere near the primary goal of capitalism??

Absolutely not... profit is the only consideration capitalism makes and nothing else..

It doesn't care whats best for people , employees or society, unless those things happen to be more profitable and hint, they never are..


a reply to: Dark Ghost



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Is capitalism an oxymoron of ethics??

No...

But is ethics anywhere near the primary goal of capitalism??

Absolutely not... profit is the only consideration capitalism makes and nothing else..

It doesn't care whats best for people , employees or society, unless those things happen to be more profitable and hint, they never are..


I concur.

Do remember though: if Capitalism is the only focus, the lack of fairness and lack of compassion experienced by everyone, even the 1% who are untouchable at the moment, will turn so bad that the whole society will collapse.

Morality and ethics are important factors to consider to run a civilised society, but neither can exist without a strong economy allowing their existence to continue.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Before Reaganism and the rich becoming an entitled class with special laws, they use to appreciate it when people had extra money to spend. Now, with the stock market, any new and all the old money circulates between the 1per centers. And they wonder why growth is so slow.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


At what point should an employer be somewhat responsible for providing a wage to its workers?


I think the root problem is that employers -- and especially corporate employers -- have been granted too much power over the employee -- and the market -- by government interference. And it is that balance of power that needs to be restored, so that the employee has just as much power in the workplace and the marketplace.

One of the more obvious ways is with the H1B tech workers who are being brought in and paid a pittance -- after American workers train them to do the job right before the American worker is fired. It's the government that makes the American worker so expensive via employee taxes, etc., and it's the government that makes foreign workers so cheap... And this is happening at the rate of 85,000 jobs per year. So through absolutely no fault of their own, the American worker cannot compete with the foreign worker.

Same principle applies to the off-shoring of manufacturing, phone centers, etc. There was a time when a nation could not trade with us unless they were granted that status -- "Most Favored Nation" status I believe it was called -- and it required that the foreign nation's workers had to be paid and treated as well as an American worker. That kept the playing field somewhat level in that foreign workers were not cheaper than American workers. Likewise for imports. China can only flood our markets with cheap goods because government lets them... all the while making it impossible for American companies to compete on a level playing field because government lays so many rules and regulations on American companies that increases their costs and thus their prices.

Other ways government interferes include licensing regulations and fees, permits, certification requirements, etc. We can certainly understand why some professions need to be licensed/certified in their field for public safety, but it's gotten ridiculous. Like Interior decorators? Hair braiders? Really??? This isn't for the benefit of the public. It benefits government by forcing people to pay them for the privilege of making a living... and it benefits the big boys by making it more difficult for the average person to compete... and it benefits those who provide the accredited training... but it doesn't serve the best interests of anyone else.

Then there's the outright crony capitalism designed to benefit some at the expense of others. For example, Wisconsin which regulated Kerry Gold butter right out of the market so it wouldn't compete with local producers. Or Michigan (if I remember correctly) which banned any car dealer (Tesla) that did not have a physical car dealership in the state. Lots of little things that makes it impossible for anyone to compete.

And all of this makes it increasingly difficult for the average person to work for themselves -- the small business, once considered the backbone of America. Which brings us to personal income taxes. I mentioned in another thread that I used to make stuff and sell at crafts fairs. I didn't make much, but it helped give my kids a good Christmas for many years. I checked it out last year, and with all of the permits and tax ID regs, it would have cost me several hundred dollars before I sold a darn thing... the government would have made more on my labor and creativity than I would have, and that doesn't even include the income taxes I would have to pay on whatever profit I did manage to make, which would then be added to my husband's income and charged at the higher rate... so my pittance of a few hundred dollars would be taxed at the same rate as my husband's full-time income.

So in answer to your question, I believe that the real problem is that the employee has no power in the marketplace, thanks to government interference, so the solution is to remove the government intereference that gives the employer (and government) too much power and control over the employee. If an employer knows that an employee can walk away and start their own company, the employer will have an incentive to make the employee happy so that employee's skills/talents will benefit them -- and not be in competition with them. If a person can get up in the morning and go find a days work for a day's pay without having to jump through this and that hoop to make sure government gets their blood money first, the individual is empowered -- not the employer/government.

Another way to empower the worker, without violating free market principles, would be to require corporations -- those fictional legal entites created out of whole cloth and granted special perks and privileges by government -- to provide a proportionate wage to their employees. In other words, the highest paid employee (the CEO) cannot be paid more than a certain percentage of the lowest paid employee. Let's say that percentage is 500%. So the CEO cannot be paid more than 500% of the lowest employee. If the lowest paid employee earns $50,000 per year, than the highest paid employee cannot make more than $250,000 per year. If the highest paid employee is given 500 shares of stock as part of their pay, the lowest paid employee must be given 100 shares of stock as part of their pay. If a company does not want to do so, they don't have to incorporate. Corporations are whatever we make them.

Unlike the minimum wage, which simply increases $$ for the government via higher employee/payroll taxes, the proportionate wage would demand that the CEOs and other higher-ups would have to actually increase productivity and profit to earn more, rather than simply raising their pay at the expense of those actually creating the product or providing the service. We could also use the tax code to incentivize non-corporations to do the same. If a non-incorporated business voluntarily follows the proportionate pay model, they can receive a lower tax rate.

I apologize for my long reply. It's one of those complex things that I just don't know how to explain any quicker or easier!



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: xenthuin
a reply to: Edumakated

I think part of the issue is the "security" of working for large companies even if they don't have competitive pay or the greatest work environment. Since 2008/2009 we've been bombarded with this idea that there aren't jobs out there and so most people cling to what they have regardless of how crappy it may be.

I directly confronted our CEO a few years ago and basically asked him "what's in it for us?" when he came out to give his annual "do more with less" speech. But ultimately the work load increased disproportionately to the pay because most everyone, myself included, is paralyzed (and therefore powerless) to the point of not being willing to leave.



To some degree, I agree. However, ultimately it is a personal decision to stay or not. The fact someone is not willing to take a risk has nothing to do with the company. Most people will tell you that sometimes in order to advance your career and get significant increases in pay, you have to leave your comfort zone. I saw my wife do this. She was making good money but essentially was stalled out at a company. Minimal raises with no promotions in sight. She said screw it one day and quit. She took a job with a small start up. Got a decent pay bump. Start up folded but it landed her an even better job. She literally doubled her income within five years. Had she not got the courage to leave, she'd still be toiling away at the same dead end job.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: xenthuin
a reply to: Edumakated

I think part of the issue is the "security" of working for large companies even if they don't have competitive pay or the greatest work environment. Since 2008/2009 we've been bombarded with this idea that there aren't jobs out there and so most people cling to what they have regardless of how crappy it may be.

I directly confronted our CEO a few years ago and basically asked him "what's in it for us?" when he came out to give his annual "do more with less" speech. But ultimately the work load increased disproportionately to the pay because most everyone, myself included, is paralyzed (and therefore powerless) to the point of not being willing to leave.



Exactly this. If someone is on a low wage it is very difficult to build up sufficient savings to cover even a short period without pay.

That makes it very difficult to leave a secure job regardless of how badly paid or treated you are.


False. If anything, you see way more turn over with lower paying jobs indicating that people are willing to quit to find a better job. Sure, there are some people who may not be able to easily do so, but most of those reasons are personal and have nothing to do with the company. The someone may have three children, her husband left her, or whatever and it is making it harder for the employee to get the courage up to quit is of no consequence to the employer. Those are personal situations.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Edumakated

In Utopia, sure, there's always a better paying job somewhere else. In reality, not so much.


Unemployment is like 5%. Sure we can argue that it might be higher, but the reality is that there are jobs out there. Whether or not someone is qualified or willing to take said job is another story. Regardless, it isn't the company that is the issue.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JinMI


At what point should an employer be somewhat responsible for providing a wage to its workers?


I think the root problem is that employers -- and especially corporate employers -- have been granted too much power over the employee -- and the market -- by government interference. And it is that balance of power that needs to be restored, so that the employee has just as much power in the workplace and the marketplace.

One of the more obvious ways is with the H1B tech workers who are being brought in and paid a pittance -- after American workers train them to do the job right before the American worker is fired. It's the government that makes the American worker so expensive via employee taxes, etc., and it's the government that makes foreign workers so cheap... And this is happening at the rate of 85,000 jobs per year. So through absolutely no fault of their own, the American worker cannot compete with the foreign worker.

Same principle applies to the off-shoring of manufacturing, phone centers, etc. There was a time when a nation could not trade with us unless they were granted that status -- "Most Favored Nation" status I believe it was called -- and it required that the foreign nation's workers had to be paid and treated as well as an American worker. That kept the playing field somewhat level in that foreign workers were not cheaper than American workers. Likewise for imports. China can only flood our markets with cheap goods because government lets them... all the while making it impossible for American companies to compete on a level playing field because government lays so many rules and regulations on American companies that increases their costs and thus their prices.

Other ways government interferes include licensing regulations and fees, permits, certification requirements, etc. We can certainly understand why some professions need to be licensed/certified in their field for public safety, but it's gotten ridiculous. Like Interior decorators? Hair braiders? Really??? This isn't for the benefit of the public. It benefits government by forcing people to pay them for the privilege of making a living... and it benefits the big boys by making it more difficult for the average person to compete... and it benefits those who provide the accredited training... but it doesn't serve the best interests of anyone else.

Then there's the outright crony capitalism designed to benefit some at the expense of others. For example, Wisconsin which regulated Kerry Gold butter right out of the market so it wouldn't compete with local producers. Or Michigan (if I remember correctly) which banned any car dealer (Tesla) that did not have a physical car dealership in the state. Lots of little things that makes it impossible for anyone to compete.

And all of this makes it increasingly difficult for the average person to work for themselves -- the small business, once considered the backbone of America. Which brings us to personal income taxes. I mentioned in another thread that I used to make stuff and sell at crafts fairs. I didn't make much, but it helped give my kids a good Christmas for many years. I checked it out last year, and with all of the permits and tax ID regs, it would have cost me several hundred dollars before I sold a darn thing... the government would have made more on my labor and creativity than I would have, and that doesn't even include the income taxes I would have to pay on whatever profit I did manage to make, which would then be added to my husband's income and charged at the higher rate... so my pittance of a few hundred dollars would be taxed at the same rate as my husband's full-time income.

So in answer to your question, I believe that the real problem is that the employee has no power in the marketplace, thanks to government interference, so the solution is to remove the government intereference that gives the employer (and government) too much power and control over the employee. If an employer knows that an employee can walk away and start their own company, the employer will have an incentive to make the employee happy so that employee's skills/talents will benefit them -- and not be in competition with them. If a person can get up in the morning and go find a days work for a day's pay without having to jump through this and that hoop to make sure government gets their blood money first, the individual is empowered -- not the employer/government.

Another way to empower the worker, without violating free market principles, would be to require corporations -- those fictional legal entites created out of whole cloth and granted special perks and privileges by government -- to provide a proportionate wage to their employees. In other words, the highest paid employee (the CEO) cannot be paid more than a certain percentage of the lowest paid employee. Let's say that percentage is 500%. So the CEO cannot be paid more than 500% of the lowest employee. If the lowest paid employee earns $50,000 per year, than the highest paid employee cannot make more than $250,000 per year. If the highest paid employee is given 500 shares of stock as part of their pay, the lowest paid employee must be given 100 shares of stock as part of their pay. If a company does not want to do so, they don't have to incorporate. Corporations are whatever we make them.

Unlike the minimum wage, which simply increases $$ for the government via higher employee/payroll taxes, the proportionate wage would demand that the CEOs and other higher-ups would have to actually increase productivity and profit to earn more, rather than simply raising their pay at the expense of those actually creating the product or providing the service. We could also use the tax code to incentivize non-corporations to do the same. If a non-incorporated business voluntarily follows the proportionate pay model, they can receive a lower tax rate.

I apologize for my long reply. It's one of those complex things that I just don't know how to explain any quicker or easier!



You were doing well till that tripe about the CEO compensation. CEO pay is based on productivity. Most of the large CEO compensation packages are due to stock options. In other words, if the company does well as measured by the value of the stock, then the CEO will be well compensated. If they don't do well, the stock options are not worth anything. A CEO might be making a base salary of say $3 million at a F500 company but their total comp could $10 or $20 million in a given year after they exercise their stock options.

Shareholders are focused on shareholder value. Who are the shareholders you might ask? It could be you through your 401k, grandma's pension, or individual investors. Everyone benefits from a company doing well. The only measure of this is profitability and share price if it is public company. CEOs are hired to do this... THIS IS THEIR JOB. Their job is not to coddle every employee, etc.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JinMI


At what point should an employer be somewhat responsible for providing a wage to its workers?


I think the root problem is that employers -- and especially corporate employers -- have been granted too much power over the employee -- and the market -- by government interference. And it is that balance of power that needs to be restored, so that the employee has just as much power in the workplace and the marketplace.

One of the more obvious ways is with the H1B tech workers who are being brought in and paid a pittance -- after American workers train them to do the job right before the American worker is fired. It's the government that makes the American worker so expensive via employee taxes, etc., and it's the government that makes foreign workers so cheap... And this is happening at the rate of 85,000 jobs per year. So through absolutely no fault of their own, the American worker cannot compete with the foreign worker.

Same principle applies to the off-shoring of manufacturing, phone centers, etc. There was a time when a nation could not trade with us unless they were granted that status -- "Most Favored Nation" status I believe it was called -- and it required that the foreign nation's workers had to be paid and treated as well as an American worker. That kept the playing field somewhat level in that foreign workers were not cheaper than American workers. Likewise for imports. China can only flood our markets with cheap goods because government lets them... all the while making it impossible for American companies to compete on a level playing field because government lays so many rules and regulations on American companies that increases their costs and thus their prices.

Other ways government interferes include licensing regulations and fees, permits, certification requirements, etc. We can certainly understand why some professions need to be licensed/certified in their field for public safety, but it's gotten ridiculous. Like Interior decorators? Hair braiders? Really??? This isn't for the benefit of the public. It benefits government by forcing people to pay them for the privilege of making a living... and it benefits the big boys by making it more difficult for the average person to compete... and it benefits those who provide the accredited training... but it doesn't serve the best interests of anyone else.

Then there's the outright crony capitalism designed to benefit some at the expense of others. For example, Wisconsin which regulated Kerry Gold butter right out of the market so it wouldn't compete with local producers. Or Michigan (if I remember correctly) which banned any car dealer (Tesla) that did not have a physical car dealership in the state. Lots of little things that makes it impossible for anyone to compete.

And all of this makes it increasingly difficult for the average person to work for themselves -- the small business, once considered the backbone of America. Which brings us to personal income taxes. I mentioned in another thread that I used to make stuff and sell at crafts fairs. I didn't make much, but it helped give my kids a good Christmas for many years. I checked it out last year, and with all of the permits and tax ID regs, it would have cost me several hundred dollars before I sold a darn thing... the government would have made more on my labor and creativity than I would have, and that doesn't even include the income taxes I would have to pay on whatever profit I did manage to make, which would then be added to my husband's income and charged at the higher rate... so my pittance of a few hundred dollars would be taxed at the same rate as my husband's full-time income.

So in answer to your question, I believe that the real problem is that the employee has no power in the marketplace, thanks to government interference, so the solution is to remove the government intereference that gives the employer (and government) too much power and control over the employee. If an employer knows that an employee can walk away and start their own company, the employer will have an incentive to make the employee happy so that employee's skills/talents will benefit them -- and not be in competition with them. If a person can get up in the morning and go find a days work for a day's pay without having to jump through this and that hoop to make sure government gets their blood money first, the individual is empowered -- not the employer/government.

Another way to empower the worker, without violating free market principles, would be to require corporations -- those fictional legal entites created out of whole cloth and granted special perks and privileges by government -- to provide a proportionate wage to their employees. In other words, the highest paid employee (the CEO) cannot be paid more than a certain percentage of the lowest paid employee. Let's say that percentage is 500%. So the CEO cannot be paid more than 500% of the lowest employee. If the lowest paid employee earns $50,000 per year, than the highest paid employee cannot make more than $250,000 per year. If the highest paid employee is given 500 shares of stock as part of their pay, the lowest paid employee must be given 100 shares of stock as part of their pay. If a company does not want to do so, they don't have to incorporate. Corporations are whatever we make them.

Unlike the minimum wage, which simply increases $$ for the government via higher employee/payroll taxes, the proportionate wage would demand that the CEOs and other higher-ups would have to actually increase productivity and profit to earn more, rather than simply raising their pay at the expense of those actually creating the product or providing the service. We could also use the tax code to incentivize non-corporations to do the same. If a non-incorporated business voluntarily follows the proportionate pay model, they can receive a lower tax rate.

I apologize for my long reply. It's one of those complex things that I just don't know how to explain any quicker or easier!



You were doing well till that tripe about the CEO compensation. CEO pay is based on productivity. Most of the large CEO compensation packages are due to stock options. In other words, if the company does well as measured by the value of the stock, then the CEO will be well compensated. If they don't do well, the stock options are not worth anything. A CEO might be making a base salary of say $3 million at a F500 company but their total comp could $10 or $20 million in a given year after they exercise their stock options.

Shareholders are focused on shareholder value. Who are the shareholders you might ask? It could be you through your 401k, grandma's pension, or individual investors. Everyone benefits from a company doing well. The only measure of this is profitability and share price if it is public company. CEOs are hired to do this... THIS IS THEIR JOB. Their job is not to coddle every employee, etc.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


You were doing well till that tripe about the CEO compensation.


What tripe about CEOs?

I never even addressed the worthiness of CEO pay, which is what your response focused on. My comment pretty much assumed that the CEO deserves his/her pay; but it also presumes that the employees deserve commensurate pay because no matter how productive a CEO is, he/she achieves NOTHING by him/herself.

I also noted that if CEOS are paid (in part) in stocks, then employees would be likewise be proportionately compensated in stocks, so each would be rewarded for productivity in the same way.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Edumakated

In Utopia, sure, there's always a better paying job somewhere else. In reality, not so much.


Unemployment is like 5%. Sure we can argue that it might be higher, but the reality is that there are jobs out there. Whether or not someone is qualified or willing to take said job is another story. Regardless, it isn't the company that is the issue.




I disagree.. I bet if you looked at the total population of able bodied Americans, AND also the total number of jobs that pay enough to support JUST ONE PERSON, not a family of 4..so say jobs at roughly 12$ an hour.


I bet there are way more people than jobs... i bet its not even close...


I don't think it is fair to count jobs that even at a full time work week, cannot pay for the WORST food, transportation, phone , clothing and shelter... only the things you are required to have to keep the job...


AND THAT IS TODAY!!!!

Within the next decade tops, all the truck driver, cabs and Uber jobs will vanish to self driving ones...


All the servers and cashiers will become kiosks..


Aall the burger flippers and frie cookers will be robots...

We were always going to reach a point where you just flat out don't need but a fraction of the poopulatuon to run society. Which started the second we created the spear.. then it only took 5 guys to take down a deer instead of 20.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated
In answer to your post about work contracts sound very fair only you miss the very vital point that makes the contract erroneous. ALL contracts I've signed or even heard of have one thing in common, they were set out and constructed by the employer. The employee has absolutely no input except to accept or reject the terms. They are ALWAYS in the favor of the employer and the employee has to take it or leave it.
As for CEOs, your wrong there. The get commensurate from the profits not the production. Profits and production are two different entities.
ie. A company turns out 100 units per week at $10 per unit= $1000. They take out costs material and electric etc. say $100. They take out wages for the employees say $100. They take out the wage of the CEO $200. That's $600 profit. That's what the CEO gets his "bonus" for.
Now production ie. The same units, the same cost for materials and sundries, but they only pay the employee $10 . They've suddenly made an extra $90 profit for the same amount of production.
OK, there are a lot more monies to be paid out running a company but you can clearly see Profit and Productivity are two different animals.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Totally agree with you on the stock market side of things.

As far as my experience with a small, privately held company, they paid me significantly more than industry standard in terms of absolute value of paycheck as well as benefits. The price there was the insecurity/uncertainty around whether the company would be able to stay in business due to the volatility of the market we were in - again, tying back into the real root cause, as you mentioned.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ketsuko

I surely get exactly what you are saying. Also, your post highlights the edge employers have over their employees not only in the individual workplace but in the market as a whole.

The discussion I'm attempting to have is where the employers max profit range versus the employees wage is acceptable. 1000% versus the 11% gap that exists in inflation over the years. I'm certain there is a medium to be reached without disrupting how the markets work. There is a greed factor at work here that is at the cost of these companies labor.



Again, I suppose it comes down to how many are there in the world who can do what the CEO does? And what will the company shareholders pay to employ?

Smaller companies will pay quite a bit less as they can't afford that price tag that the biggest firms can, but then again, the biggest firms can afford to hire the very best at what they do too. So they will lay out the money and the very best can demand it.

It works the same way in acting and sports talent, but I never see threads complaining about how much actors or sports talents get paid. Or entertainers either for that matter. Jay-Z and Beyonce just put down a payment on a $125million mansion. Do they make too much for their music?

No. People only complain about business.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I appreciate all the talk in this thread. In case you didn't notice, my ignorance on this topic is pretty high and has been diminished a lil!




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join