NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure people will start calling me a commie, but I have been thinking about this for some time and it doesn't really make sense to me.
Why do bosses and CEO's etc. make such ridiculous amounts of money?
Of course they have more responsibilities then regular employees and factory workers, but a factory worker for example works his ass off and barely has any money left for when he retires. His boss can sit in his chair for years (doing stressy work, I admit) and retire at 50-55 and live on, playing golf.
Even from a capitalist point of view it's hard to explain: If bosses would make less money, the company would make more!
What if we just sacked the bosses and take over the companies? that way the employees situation would improve greatly, better social security, better pension plans, less need for firing, etc.

Really, I wish to hear a good argument for high paychecks for bosses


(I'll add a poll for fun)

They make so much money because they have worked hard and long, and negotiated well. ;)

Seriously, I got the same "why does she make so much money?" thing from the drive thru people when I managed a fast food restraunt, they said it "wasn't fair" that I made about 15,000 more a year than them. I wasn't on salary and I only made .75 cents an hour more than they did, I suppose I just worked a LOT more.

but, since CEO's are salary, I guess that doesn't apply.

yeah, I go with my original answer, They make so much money because they have worked hard and long, and negotiated well. ;)

The argument is:
A good boss is worth the money. The company that pays the most money is more likely to get the good boss. Since there's not enough good bosses to go around or any methods to separate good from bad without having them run a company in the first place, you get a lot of incompetent, but well paid people in such positions.

Capitalist Sucmbags!!!
You shall all die!!!

It's capitalism. Don't question it.

i know, its stupid. and then you have things like golden handshakes, the massive bonuses a lot of CEO's give themselves (and the rest of the board... not the regular workers, oh no), and also the fact that once you earn that much you can set up trusts, offshore accounts and the like, employ accountants and invest your moolah to pay less tax than the average worker in your company.
that is not fair and should be stopped.

neither is the fact that these CEO's get paid disproportionatley high amounts of money.

i guess the reason is simple supply and demand: the demand for these people exceeds the supply of competent, capable managers.

Really, I wish to hear a good argument for high paychecks for bosses

Cause there job is a hell of a lot harder then the people at the bottom. Don't believe me? It took me a day to learn how to cashier, it took me about a week to get down all the rules and regulations of a deli and how to operate the machinery in it also only took about a half hour. Now the time it takes to get good at running a company is a lot longer then week. The bigger the company, the harder running it becomes. It becomes increasingly difficult to manage companies the bigger they get.

It's capitalism, don't question it. Don't expect it to make any sense.
Although, corporate deathsquads might also be a good reason.

How much impact does the individual have on the bottom line?

Simple example, 100 workers, one boss.

Each worker can only contribute, on average, 1% of the work accomplished.
The wage you set for them will be determined by the skill level required to do the work.
Your profits will barely factor in. If your labour is cheap, you make more profit. If it is expensive, you mmake less, or eventually you close down.

The boss though, contributes through EVERY worker by hiring/firing/developmet processes. The boss will set the course and the vision for the future.
A bad boss can waste the effort of every worker, a good boss can multiply their efforts into significant success by knowing what strategy to apply.

It's nothing to do with who works "hard", it's about who has the greatest impact on success.


The excesses of CEO salries and payouts regardless of performance are due to monetary commitments made up front independent of performance combined with individuals that have their own hand in the cookie jar and can reward themselves (or their peers) almost at will.

It's a cookie for winning the rat race.

Congratulations, you gave three decades of your life to the Company, sacrificed two marriages and the love and respect of your children, now have a paycheck 100x that of the average worker and a PA to provide manual relief.

Because they can. Because they have bought into overconsumerisim and feel the need to buy too much crap.

But then, maybe it's because they are greedy, grasping over achievers that they are Bosses in the first place?

I know I wouldn't want my boss giving away the farm. I'd much rather s/he be greedy and grasping enough to ensure the company is profitable - AND keeps the productive employees employed.

i guess the reason is simple supply and demand: the demand for these people exceeds the supply of competent, capable managers.

...within the class of people who are usually ever allowed the positions. a class that is kept artificially small in the first place.

Capitalism is Eternal. Truth is Eternal. Capitalism is the Truth. Do not question it. Or, face the consequences. :)

If your labour is cheap, you make more profit. If it is expensive, you mmake less, or eventually you close down.

*snip rest of contradictory crap*

How does this excuse the boss making excessive amounts of money more than the average worker plus huge bonuses and severance packages?

If the labour is more expensive, couldn't you just cut just a fractional number off the cost of employing the boss and make up the profit?

Responsibility. If the factory messes up, the boss is more liekly to take the blame than the average worker on the line.

And once they have money, money breeds more money, so then you can retire earlier.

if the employees were to take over the company, there would still be a boss somewhere, and that boss would most likely see he is superior then everyone else, why should he be on wage, or making as much as the guys down on the floor? he should have a nice cumfy income, so he can support his family and all of their needs.

another reason, is income is what keeps some people at a job. if person x was working for a comapny that payed him $90,000 a year, but then company y has advertised to him that if he was to hold the exact same position for their company he will be making $110,000. which comapny will he go to work for?
point of this paragraph is you have to keep wage competitive to keep your employees

They make so much money because they have worked hard and long, and negotiated well. ;)

Responsibility. If the factory messes up, the boss is more liekly to take the blame than the average worker on the line.

And once they have money, money breeds more money, so then you can retire earlier.
Agreed.

They get payed what they do, because companies are willing to pay them that much to work. And because companies are willing to pay them that much to work, why should they work for less? Not sure if that necessarily qualifies as "capitalism" on itself, but it's certainly free-market thought. Supply and demand.

Because they are the boss!!!

If the labour is more expensive, couldn't you just cut just a fractional number off the cost of employing the boss and make up the profit?

it all comes down to a question of power and decision making. completely unsurprisingly, those with the power give themselves whatever they can.

They get payed what they do, because companies are willing to pay them that much to work. And because companies are willing to pay them that much to work, why should they work for less? Not sure if that necessarily qualifies as "capitalism" on itself, but it's certainly free-market thought. Supply and demand.
Quite precisely so. High demand and low availability of CEOs help boost their salaries considerably.

An individual productive common worker makes little difference to a companys affairs no matter how hard or how many hours he works.

A boss on the other hand has a much greater role in how the company is run and not only has the responcibility for success/faliour but a successful boss will make more for a company than the avarage workers could dream of. Thats why the deserve and should be paid so much.

As free soviets said, the opportunities to get into such positions might be limited for a large class of people and thats a problem that ultimately reduces productivity and competition so something that needs to be sorted out (but thats a whole different topic)

They make as much money as people will pay them. Apparently, the people paying their salaries (i.e, not you) believe the "bosses" are worth it.

I don't see why people should complain. It's not like how the Presiden't salary is so high, and he gets paid from your tax dollars. The money you gotta pay or else wind up in prison. ;)

Why do bosses make so much money?
Because they can.

They make as much money as people will pay them. Apparently, the people paying their salaries (i.e, other bosses) believe the "bosses" are worth it.

small correction made

small correction made
When you buy stock in the company, then you can bitch and moan about the salary.:)

small correction made

Careful. You're using a machine made by exploitation.

When you buy stock in the company, then you can bitch and moan about the salary.:)

...or the company is receiving any kind of help or assistance from the government, or I am entering into a business relationship with them by either buying or selling either their products/labour or mine.

Most small business managers don't make much more money than their employees.

Big business CEOs, especially in America, get paid so much because of competition. If the company doesn't pay the good CEO enough they will just move onto another company. In America the bar is set especially high, which means that companies can't afford to pay workers decent amounts of money.

The fact that the bar is high is indicative that maximum wage laws must be introduced. The salaries of CEOs are getting out of control and potentially destroying the contribution of business to society.

on the contrary they usually evade blame

Most small business managers don't make much more money than their employees.

Big business CEOs, especially in America, get paid so much because of competition. If the company doesn't pay the good CEO enough they will just move onto another company. In America the bar is set especially high, which means that companies can't afford to pay workers decent amounts of money.

The fact that the bar is high is indicative that maximum wage laws must be introduced. The salaries of CEOs are getting out of control and potentially destroying the contribution of business to society.

THe insurance industry is a product of "maximum wage laws". When there were salary caps in place and a glut of workers, businesses had to invent "Perks" to attract employees after WWII. How much you want to bet that most of what a CEO brings in is not in "salary" anyway?

Corporate Car, Housing allowance, Stock options, etc. A salary cap will only make it worse.

if the employees were to take over the company, there would still be a boss somewhere, Not if they run the company in a democratic manner.

Not if they run the company in a democratic manner.
Which would slow any decision making process dramatically, probably strangle it's ability to compete(this really depends on the industry), and eventually die.
The workers are now out of a job, and nobody gets paid.

But Bers, if this were communism...
Great, then instead of dying, the company stays afloat (barely) and continues to provide substandard service. And I can't get better service elsewhere, because there are no competitors.

Which would slow any decision making process dramatically, probably strangle it's ability to compete(this really depends on the industry), and eventually die.
The workers are now out of a job, and nobody gets paid.

evidence?

Not if they run the company in a democratic manner.

Great rather than have a few highly trained and educated men who know the business and economics well, we'll have a few thousand undeducated labour workers to all give their 2 cents.

Way to be efficient.

Great rather than have a few highly trained and educated men who know the business and economics well, we'll have a few thousand undeducated labour workers to all give their 2 cents.

Way to be efficient.

If the workers choose to hire knowledgeable individuals to provide their input, they have that option.

Great rather than have a few highly trained and educated men who know the business and economics well, we'll have a few thousand undeducated labour workers to all give their 2 cents.

Way to be efficient.

evidence that we have that now?

If the workers choose to hire knowledgeable individuals to provide their input, they have that option.

So the unskilled should pick the skilled rather than vice-versa.. unique I suppose.

So the unskilled should pick the skilled rather than vice-versa.. unique I suppose.

more like "people who have a stake in an organization should have a say in the running of it"

more like "people who have a stake in an organization should have a say in the running of it"

shareholders...?

I mean if we're talking unskilled workers, they're pretty disposable and replaceable.

shareholders...?

I mean if we're talking unskilled workers, they're pretty disposable and replaceable.

no, stakeholders.

rich people are really even more disposeable and replaceable than unskilled labor, even though we currently do not treat them as such.

and it's not like rich people are smarter than average, yet they currently get to make the decisions about who runs things. sometimes they are successful, sometimes not. the same would be true of any group making such decisions.

no, stakeholders.

rich people are really even more disposeable and replaceable than unskilled labor, even though we currently do not treat them as such.

and it's not like rich people are smarter than average, yet they currently get to make the decisions about who runs things. sometimes they are successful, sometimes not. the same would be true of any group making such decisions.

The argument wasn't as such about if rich people are smart or successfull. But if the responcibility and overall influence a boss has on a company makes it worthwhile for him to be paid the ammount they are today.

I take your argument into account, but I'll challange that those in power making the decisions are going to be more successfull than the avarage joe worker at making the choices (as you seem to suggest the workers should do)

The argument wasn't as such about if rich people are smart or successfull. But if the responcibility and overall influence a boss has on a company makes it worthwhile for him to be paid the ammount they are today.

I take your argument into account, but I'll challange that those in power making the decisions are going to be more successfull than the avarage joe worker at making the choices (as you seem to suggest the workers should do)

the pay difference is a result of power and class differences, nothing more.

people are people, and if given the opportunity the average joe would quickly learn how to become successful at making decisions or figuring out who to have around to help make them (at least as well as the people currently doing so do). likewise, given the appropriate opportunities, pretty much anybody could develop the skill set that is needed to be a ceo. but the system is rigged to not allow this on anything like a large scale.

So the unskilled should pick the skilled rather than vice-versa.. unique I suppose.

Yeah, just imagine the hilarious consequences if people tried to run something like a nation that way.

How does this excuse the boss making excessive amounts of money more than the average worker plus huge bonuses and severance packages?

If the labour is more expensive, couldn't you just cut just a fractional number off the cost of employing the boss and make up the profit?

First off, please highlight the "snipped contradictory crap" because there was none. You are free to hold your opinion and free to challenge mine, but nothing I stated was contradictory, unless by contradictory, you really mean, an opinion you don't like on a topic you are unfamiliar with.

I did not say any of it excuses excessive payouts.
After I described why there is a significant difference in pay structure, I also described how it can get out of control and excessive.

Why can't you cut just a fractional amount off the boss salary to make up lost profits if labour is expensive? Because in most cases it won't be enough to make any significant impact to the profits.
Even the CEOs you hear of with multi-million $ deals, their companies operate in billions of dollars. You can't make up a profit short fall from the boss's salary.

Of course, NO ONE is agreeing that failed executives deserve high end bonuses, but like most things in life, it isn't always perfectly fair.
For every Executive that gets an undeserved golden handshake, there are hundreds of workers that are sleeping on the jopb, and collecting a healthy pay cheque while their junior peers do all the real work.
Human nature.

the pay difference is a result of power and class differences, nothing more.

people are people, and if given the opportunity the average joe would quickly learn how to become successful at making decisions or figuring out who to have around to help make them (at least as well as the people currently doing so do). likewise, given the appropriate opportunities, pretty much anybody could develop the skill set that is needed to be a ceo. but the system is rigged to not allow this on anything like a large scale.

I will happily admit there are some people I've met who can literally do everything I can do but to a much better ability and have skills I could only dream of. At the same time I've met people who I think are reallly stupid and shouldn't be able to run a car, let alone a company.

Even under complete equal opportunity (kinda like a single school offers every pupil the same resources) some will flourish and others will have difficulty. I have trouble believing an avarage guy given the right education and chances would always be able to handle the pressures and demands of a high skilled position. I know for sure that no matter how much training/education I get I couldn't run the country like Tony Blair or handle the economy like Gordon Brown, its because they CAN handle it, that they are in higher positions than myself.

the pay difference is a result of power and class differences, nothing more.

people are people, and if given the opportunity the average joe would quickly learn how to become successful at making decisions or figuring out who to have around to help make them (at least as well as the people currently doing so do). likewise, given the appropriate opportunities, pretty much anybody could develop the skill set that is needed to be a ceo. but the system is rigged to not allow this on anything like a large scale.

I'm sorry, but you're very wrong.
Most "average joes" will never have what it takes to successfully run any significant sized organisation.
It's not a class issue, it's an ability issue.
Those already rich have more chances to see if they have what it takes, but anyone can build a business up from nothing if they have the talent for it.

American culture if rife with and proud of it's "self-made" men and women. There is nothing "rigged" to stop them.

American culture if rife with and proud of it's "self-made" men and women. There is nothing "rigged" to stop them.

back here in the world of facts and data, the number one predictor of where you will end up economically is where you started.

Most "average joes" will never have what it takes to successfully run any significant sized organisation.
It's not a class issue, it's an ability issue.

and the rich are just born more able, then?

Yeah, just imagine the hilarious consequences if people tried to run something like a nation that way.Yeah, I find it to be quite ridiculous that people think democracy is a good way to run a country but not a company.

Great rather than have a few highly trained and educated men who know the business and economics well, we'll have a few thousand undeducated labour workers to all give their 2 cents.

Way to be efficient.
Yep, let the uneducated wokers make the decisions, the ones that are smart enough to get educated individuals to delegatea and manage will suceed and those that don't will fail and be unemployed. At least this way it would be their own fault instead of some shareholding bigwigs who hire an idiot that mismanages the company resulting in the workers geting fired through no fault of their own and the idiot being let off with a several thousand dollar severance package.

Yeah, I find it to be quite ridiculous that people think democracy is a good way to run a country but not a company.
Nods in agreement

A boss provides several rare skills: leadership and administration. Not many people are capable leaders or administrators, and the demand for people to fill these rolls is high. Beyond that, a boss typically has a good amount invested in himself from his education, typically administrators are college graduates, whilst many common workers didn't even graduate from high school. It's supply and demand.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, most anybody can wield a rivet gun on the factory floor, few can oversee the sucessful implementation of lean manufacturing techniques or six-sigma business protocols, in fact, how many people know what those are?

back here in the world of facts and data, the number one predictor of where you will end up economically is where you started.
Because you are raised in a culture that inserts certain values into you. Manual labor, lite beer and and Jerry Springer are associated with blue collar types. On the other hand, white collar folks tend to be associated with education, administration, the discovery channel and imported beer. It's what's expected of you by your family, not some evil structure to keep the working man down. People stick with what's familiar.

no, stakeholders.

rich people are really even more disposeable and replaceable than unskilled labor, even though we currently do not treat them as such.

and it's not like rich people are smarter than average, yet they currently get to make the decisions about who runs things. sometimes they are successful, sometimes not. the same would be true of any group making such decisions.
The employers get to make the decisions because they own the physical factory. The workers don't. Without the investement of the rich person, the factory would never have been built. As such, they are far more vital than the unskilled labor. Without the rich person the factory doesn't exist.

Unless you want to steal the factory from the investors. But hey, what's a little theft here and there.

back here in the world of facts and data, the number one predictor of where you will end up economically is where you started.

Correlation does not mean causation.

There is no doubt that those that start off well will be provided with more opportunites to succeed than those that start off poorly, but it is not a limiting factor.

Also, perhaps those most gifted/trained in the skills required to succeed are more likely to pass on/train those traits in their young. Or maybe not.


I'd rephrase your statement anyway to:
The number one predictor of where you will end up economically is where believe you deserve to be.

more like "people who have a stake in an organization should have a say in the running of it"
What? The workers don't have stake in the organization. If it folds, then they lose nothing but a source of income, and they can go find another source of income fairly readily. If it folds, the investors lose the money they sunk into the enterprise, plus a source of income. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the investors have far more at risk than the workers.

and the rich are just born more able, then?


Not likely, but perhaps there is some selective breeding to enhance that, who knows.

The employers get to make the decisions because they own the physical factory.

not in any sense that i'd recognize.

It's basic supply and demand; companies tend to look for CEOs with considerable experience in their industry and (preferably) a large amount of experience. However, the number of people with that experience are few and are already employed which drives up the amount that has to be offered to get them to work and the demand for qualified CEOs gives them leverage to demand even more benefits and compensation even if the net amount of work they are doing is not increasing. It's the same with salaries in any field experiencing a labor shortage, albeit in far greater terms.

Plus, the goal is to retain the CEO long enough to get a return on the investment and CEOs are almost guaranteed to ask for increasingly more to keep them there when faced with other offers.

Even so, CEO salaries are pretty tame. Almost all of their real income comes from various stock compensation and options programs.

Yeah, I find it to be quite ridiculous that people think democracy is a good way to run a country but not a company.

Democracy of who??

The employers get to make the decisions because they own the physical factory. The workers don't. Without the investement of the rich person, the factory would never have been built. As such, they are far more vital than the unskilled labor. Without the rich person the factory doesn't exist.


Without the workers, the factory doesn't exit either. Unless you think a guy who hasn't made any product in 30 years, if ever, could do the work that even one factory worker does.

Yeah, I find it to be quite ridiculous that people think democracy is a good way to run a country but not a company.

A company is very similar to a centrally planned economy, albeit one that competes with many thousands of others and on a much smaller and specific scale. Democratization in such an organizational system ultimately proves to be a negative and makes the company unable to function as properly or efficently as it could with a clear-cut chain of command that is fairly rigid.

Yeah, I find it to be quite ridiculous that people think democracy is a good way to run a country but not a company.

Democracy is important for your leader because it goes somewhat to ensuring each group in society has some influence and representation. Trade unions try to represent the avarage worker, and a boss has to worry about running a successful and profitable company rather than hearing every concern the workers have.

In democracy an unelected leader is dangerous because hes unacountable and has no mandate, in a company he is accountable to shareholders/law and to some extent the government.

I'm sure people will start calling me a commie, but I have been thinking about this for some time and it doesn't really make sense to me.
Why do bosses and CEO's etc. make such ridiculous amounts of money?
Of course they have more responsibilities then regular employees and factory workers, but a factory worker for example works his ass off and barely has any money left for when he retires. His boss can sit in his chair for years (doing stressy work, I admit) and retire at 50-55 and live on, playing golf.
Even from a capitalist point of view it's hard to explain: If bosses would make less money, the company would make more!
What if we just sacked the bosses and take over the companies? that way the employees situation would improve greatly, better social security, better pension plans, less need for firing, etc.

Really, I wish to hear a good argument for high paychecks for bosses


(I'll add a poll for fun)

responsibility, accountability and the pressure that comes with them


There is also the subject of being compensated for all the education (which costs $$$) that's required for many management jobs -- MBA, MS or MA (etc.) -- believe it or not, going to school for three extra years is three more years of papers, assignments (if business-related, plenty of statistical/math work), and exams to suffer. Ya don't sit in a banquet hall, eating and drinking, and then get the piece of paper.

but basically -- it's all about responsibility, accountability and pressure

Someone has to manage. It might as well be you! hehe

not in any sense that i'd recognize.
But in a sense that the vast majority of people do recognize.

I've had this argument before, and the leftist dogma is as entrenched a fundamentalist religion in some people.

and the rich are just born more able, then?

I thought the discussion was about bosses, not owners.

Of course, those who are able to make enough to become owners, must be more able by definition, right?

Becoming a business owner is not like winning the lottery. No one gives it away.

Bosses make more because they do more, at least the good ones do. Having known what some bosses do, I would not want their job.

My wife's last boss was on call 24/7, and because it was a security firm, that was literally 24 hours a day/seven days a week. He had to handle the employees and the clients needs, and when an employee called off and there was no one to cover that shift, he would work it while still handling everything else.

My current boss is an executive-level consultant, who is not only responsible for handling day to day business, but must also bring in new business. My wife would freak if I had to travel as much as this guy does, having to schedule time for the wife and kids in between everything else.

When I was a younger, less experienced worker, I thought that the boss made too much and did too little. Now I know better, and I am glad that I am not the boss. ;)

Without the workers, the factory doesn't exit either. Unless you think a guy who hasn't made any product in 30 years, if ever, could do the work that even one factory worker does.

As its been said before "hard work" be all and end all route to success. The fact is there is a workforce across the world hundreds of millions happy to do cheap long houred labour to a reasonable level. Not so many investors or bosses. And while the boss might not be able to clean the floors or make a product as well as a regular worker, he's above that an ultamately much more productive in total ecomonic value.

Great rather than have a few highly trained and educated men who know the business and economics well, we'll have a few thousand undeducated labour workers to all give their 2 cents.

Way to be efficient.
You're right, we should apply the same logic to the running of our countries. Right, so who shall be dictator?

THe insurance industry is a product of "maximum wage laws". When there were salary caps in place and a glut of workers, businesses had to invent "Perks" to attract employees after WWII. How much you want to bet that most of what a CEO brings in is not in "salary" anyway?

Corporate Car, Housing allowance, Stock options, etc. A salary cap will only make it worse.
Good point, I never thought of that.

You're right, we should apply the same logic to the running of our countries. Right, so who shall be dictator?
.

A government needs to ensure your representation and rights, a company just needs to follow in line with what the laws are.

You're right, we should apply the same logic to the running of our countries. Right, so who shall be dictator?


Good point, I never thought of that.

it's a good idea to have some sort of brain trust running a firm... people who have studied how businesses work, covering such essential tasks as:

a) Marketing
b) Operations
c) Finance
d) Accounting
e) Organizational Behavior
f) Financial Reports Shredding

hehe

seriously, though, allowing a business to be run by (relatively) uneducated workers would probably not be a good idea. If such happened, to maximize their ability to govern the business, it'd be good if they elected some of themselves to run the company. hehe

IE, companies require leadership. Democracy should go only as far as the shareholder's vote. In the corporate office, educated (or otherwise effective) leaders are necessary to guide the company.

If they suck at that job, the shareholders may vote them out.

it's a good idea to have some sort of brain trust running a firm... people who have studied how businesses work, covering such essential tasks as:

a) Marketing
b) Operations
c) Finance
d) Accounting
e) Organizational Behavior
f) Financial Reports Shredding
.

Democracy is just about electing representatives who are good at issues such as a-f and more, to make our decisions for us anyway.

Democracy of who??You are familiar with the concept of a country being democratic, right? Now extend that idea to a company.

A company is very similar to a centrally planned economy, albeit one that competes with many thousands of others and on a much smaller and specific scale. Democratization in such an organizational system ultimately proves to be a negative and makes the company unable to function as properly or efficently as it could with a clear-cut chain of command that is fairly rigid.So then does this mean that centrally planned economies are better because they are able to function properly and efficiently with clear-cut chains of command that are fairly rigid?

In democracy an unelected leader is dangerous because hes unacountable and has no mandateExactly, unelected leaders/bosses are dangerous because they are unaccountable and have no mandate.

Becoming a business owner is not like winning the lottery. No one gives it away.Really? Nobody ever inherits a business?

Oh you've all got it wrong ...

Bosses make the most money because they have to keep hiring wave after wave of minions to go out and die from a single sword stroke of the hero. Bosses also need to pay for all of the strange elevators and impenetrable treelines that slowly weave a path to his lair.

Also, that lair needs to be protected by heavier and faster machinery, weapon types, and the all important rocket launcher/flame thrower that must be surgically implanted in the boss's chest.

We also must be aware that since their demise permits the hero to move on to the next level of slightly harder, and differently colored, minions, the next level boss must make that much more money to compensate for the ineptness of the previously beatable boss.

Exactly, unelected leaders/bosses are dangerous because they are unaccountable and have no mandate.

They are accountable to shareholders and the consumer public. They're mandate is likely to be a degree, experiance and general support within the higher ranks of the company.


Really? Nobody ever inherits a business

That is unfortunate and a problem, its still likely there are many highly qualified board members and executives able to ensure the company stays stable. And while inheritance of business is unfortunate this is a small price to pay if it prevents equality of outcome.

I'm sure people will start calling me a commie, but I have been thinking about this for some time and it doesn't really make sense to me.
Why do bosses and CEO's etc. make such ridiculous amounts of money?
Of course they have more responsibilities then regular employees and factory workers, but a factory worker for example works his ass off and barely has any money left for when he retires. His boss can sit in his chair for years (doing stressy work, I admit) and retire at 50-55 and live on, playing golf.
Even from a capitalist point of view it's hard to explain: If bosses would make less money, the company would make more!
What if we just sacked the bosses and take over the companies? that way the employees situation would improve greatly, better social security, better pension plans, less need for firing, etc.

Really, I wish to hear a good argument for high paychecks for bosses


(I'll add a poll for fun)

This is the situation my father's mill is in right now...
It's a Canadian paper mill...
Anything to do with lumber in Canada has been hurt by the Softwood Lumber dispute (although I think I heard that NAFTA had a ruling the other day demanding the US drop illegal tarriffs)
On top of that, Bowater is a company run by Americans... and if all American companies are run like this one, it's NO WONDER they had to put illegal tarriffs on goods to sell their own stuff, because they're IDIOTS.
This mill, which used to be very productive, and made good money, has been run into the ground by corporate bean-counters, who make changes to save money, rather than spending ANY sort of time deciding what's best for the mill. They cut jobs all over the place (1/4 of the work force is being laid off in a little while), don't maintain equipment, and are basically killing the main industry of this city.
And, get this, they REFUSE to sell the company, because they don't want competition from anyone who can make the mill profitable again. They want to strengthen their other mills down south, while sapping everything out of this one, and leaving it a wreck that no one would ever invest in again.
If it were put up for sale, the workers could, at this time, buy it out, and run it themselves for a profit. Maybe not a LARGE profit, but they wouldn't care either, so long as it pays the bills and keeps them employed.
So there you go... one of my main reasons for hating American capitalism... don't say it doesn't effect the rest of the world.

Democracy of who??

"Democracy of whom?"

They make as much money as people will pay them. Apparently, the people paying their salaries (i.e, not you) believe the "bosses" are worth it.

I don't see why people should complain. It's not like how the Presiden't salary is so high, and he gets paid from your tax dollars. The money you gotta pay or else wind up in prison. ;)
It's not that much higher than the rest of the politicos salaries, and arguably he does much, much more work than your average representative/senator.

But in a sense that the vast majority of people do recognize.

I've had this argument before, and the leftist dogma is as entrenched a fundamentalist religion in some people.I'd love to have this debate with you, but this isn't the right thread for it. This one would be, though: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449387

They are accountable to shareholders and the consumer public. They're mandate is likely to be a degree, experiance and general support within the higher ranks of the company. Not all companies have shareholders. Being accountable to the consumer public is the equivalent of George W. Bush being accountable to the British.

And while inheritance of business is unfortunate this is a small price to pay if it prevents equality of outcome.Equality of outcome should be encouraged, not prevented.

Not all companies have shareholders. Being accountable to the consumer public is the equivalent of George W. Bush being accountable to the British.
.
When the consumers begin to stop buying a product the management is looked at.


Equality of outcome should be encouraged, not prevented.

But then either unqualified workers are running affairs they have little knowledge about.

Or someone whos spent years in training to be able to run the company will be living the same life as someone making the basic product (if he has any incentive to do this in the first place). Both undesirable for me.

You are familiar with the concept of a country being democratic, right? Now extend that idea to a company.


Suuuure, but in my country, all citzens get a vote. It's our right by virtue of being a citizen.

Who are the "citizens" in a company?
Stockholders?
Executives?
Management?
Employees?

All of these people change and don't enjoy any "right" to their position/title, being subject to removal or replacement due to performance or an environment beyond the control of the company.

When the consumers begin to stop buying a product the management is looked at.

By whom?

"Democracy of whom?"

Ouch.

So right, sorry.

By whom?


The owners.

By whom?

Shareholders and everyone important in the company because they want profit otherwise their money starts disapearing

-snip-

Really? Nobody ever inherits a business?

Yes, some people do inherit businesses. And if they are unwilling or unable to bring the ability and put in the hard hours necessary to run the business as well as their parent, they will lose it. Businesses do not run themselves.

Suuuure, but in my country, all citzens get a vote. It's our right by virtue of being a citizen.And why wouldn't this be true for a company, too?

Who are the "citizens" in a company?
Stockholders?
Executives?
Management?
Employees?Employees would be, with executives and managers who they elect, if they don't run the company democratically. Stockholders should have no more power over a company than bond owners have over a country.

All of these people change and don't enjoy any "right" to their position/title, being subject to removal or replacement due to performance or an environment beyond the control of the company.And likewise, people can be deported or put in jail in a democracy.

You're right, we should apply the same logic to the running of our countries. Right, so who shall be dictator?
I'd be willing to accept a dictator, provided that he was limited by a strict external body and was required to keep the country in the black. And if that country were also sitting immediatly beside a dozen different countries, each with their own dictators competing for citizens, and I could easily move to one of those neighboring countries the second it offered me a better shake.
Oh, and this dictator has to be willing to only control my life for a limited period each day, and allow me to fuck about and do whatever I want when I leave his country for the rest of that day. Further, this dictator must accept the presence of an elected official, a sort of PM, as it were, who would head the Union of Citizens. This PM could antagonize the boss, and would rally the citizens to agitate for better standards every once in a while.
Find me a dictator willing to sit through all that, and still pay me for the pleasure of my company, won't you? I've been looking for a place to emmigrate to.

Yes, some people do inherit businesses. And if they are unwilling or unable to bring the ability and put in the hard hours necessary to run the business as well as their parent, they will lose it. Businesses do not run themselves.They don't have to run the business, they can hire someone else to do that for them. All they'd have to do then is watch over that person.

The owners.

You assume that the owners are not also the managers. I would wager, given the prevalence of small businesses in the world today, that in the vast majoirty of companies the two are the same.

I would just like to point out how ironic it is that government measures have actually encouraged the extraordinarily high amount of money top execs make. Interestingly, such a "problem" arises from government taxing (twice) corporate profits. Not only is the profit itself taxed, but when the profit is then distributed to stockholders, it is taxed a second time. Wanting to avoid paying what is essentially twice the tax, the corporation attempts to keep some of their profits "in the system" so to speak. This allows them to avoid losing money. As a result, much of this loose money goes towards an increase in the salaries of the top execs.

You want to eliminate the increased bureaucratic centralization of corporations? Eliminate government interventions that stifle competition.

Shareholders and everyone important in the company because they want profit otherwise their money starts disapearing

And what control do those within the company have over their managers?

In 1980, in the US, the average CEO made 41 times the amount of money than the average worker of a company. In 1990, in the US, the average CEO made 85 times the amount of money than the average worker of a company. In Great Britain, CEO's make only about 14 the amount than the average worker. But today, in the United States, the average CEO makes ... ... ... a whopping 531 times the average worker.

And what control do those within the company have over their managers?

Okay little. But then the managers are mostly ensuring those in the company are working effectively to make this profit. So in essence its up to them to change things if things are going baddly, as its their money and company.

You want to eliminate the increased bureaucratic centralization of corporations? Eliminate government interventions that stifle competition.

Hold it there, thats getting into dangerous ground. When companys become too powerfull the government has to give in to their demands (or face their economic wrath) and when one company alone can outclass all others competition is gone.

You assume that the owners are not also the managers. I would wager, given the prevalence of small businesses in the world today, that in the vast majoirty of companies the two are the same.
In which case, if they fail they lose their job and all that the time, money and thought that they invested in their business.

They don't have to run the business, they can hire someone else to do that for them. All they'd have to do then is watch over that person.
At which point they are no longer the manager, and the person running the business for them is making the awesome salary, and they're making it because they put forth the effort, and had the talent, required to land that position.

In 1980, in the US, the average CEO made 41 times the amount of money than the average worker of a company. In 1990, in the US, the average CEO made 85 times the amount of money than the average worker of a company. In Great Britain, CEO's make only about 14 the amount than the average worker. But today, in the United States, the average CEO makes ... ... ... a whopping 531 times the average worker.

So?

(I always hear these statistics cited as if to elicit some reaction. My reaction is the same as if you told me that a ferrari is worth 1000 x the price of my current vehicle---so? Or that the guy across the street paid twice what I did for a larger house---so?)

I would just like to point out how ironic it is that government measures have actually encouraged the extraordinarily high amount of money top execs make. Interestingly, such a "problem" arises from government taxing (twice) corporate profits. Not only is the profit itself taxed, but when the profit is then distributed to stockholders, it is taxed a second time. Wanting to avoid paying what is essentially twice the tax, the corporation attempts to keep some of their profits "in the system" so to speak. This allows them to avoid losing money. As a result, much of this loose money goes towards an increase in the salaries of the top execs.

You want to eliminate the increased bureaucratic centralization of corporations? Eliminate government interventions that stifle competition.

evidence that corporations actually pay their taxes?

evidence that corporations actually pay their taxes?
Corporate headquarters on Caribbean islands.

You do why? Because they work the hardest. its the simple capitalist equation work harder=more money.

And why wouldn't this be true for a company, too?


Because companies don't have anyone native to them nor anyone like a citizen with any rights.
Employees have rights as people, but not as XYZ Inc. employees.

Employees would be, with executives and managers who they elect, if they don't run the company democratically. Stockholders should have no more power over a company than bond owners have over a country.


Where do these employees come from??? How do you get employees that can elect executives and managers? Do you throw open the doors and hope employees wander in and then have them vote? and even if you could, who would be even there to throw open the doors??

Stockholders will ALWAYS have the power, and bond holders can't be compared. Companies will fail and close if stockholders lack confidence in the company to generate a profit because they will take their money out and put in a different venture.

And likewise, people can be deported or put in jail in a democracy.

That's not even remotely a similar comparison.
You can't deport your native citizens and you can't jail them because their services are no longer required.
As a citizen of a democratic country, your rights can only be taken away if you commit some crime deemed serious enough to deny your rights.

In a company, regardless of how well you do your job, it is entirely possible that there will be no need for your services and you may be seeking a job in a different company entirely.

You assume that the owners are not also the managers. I would wager, given the prevalence of small businesses in the world today, that in the vast majoirty of companies the two are the same.


Sure, but in all businesses, you don't have the same level of disparity in earnings.

Regardless, if the owner of a small business does a poor job of managing it, they will need to examine the results from the perspective of an owner and make adjustments, or else they will go out of business.

It's Darwinian even.

evidence that corporations actually pay their taxes?


Conference Board Report


Are Corporations in Canada Paying Their Dues? Evidence of Taxes Collected over the Last Half-Century
Detailed Findings, January 2001
Source: The Conference Board of Canada

Abstract:
Competition from the United States matters most to Canadian corporations. This study provides a brief but comprehensive comparison of the overall tax level on corporations in Canada and the United States and provides a detailed breakdown of all types of taxes collected from Canadian corporations since 1950.

Highlights:
Taxes on corporations have been constantly increasing in nominal as well as in real terms.

Over the last 50 years,
total corporate taxes have increased by more than nine times in real terms, resulting in an annual average compound growth of 4.6 per cent.
the most significant increase has been in payroll, property and other miscellaneous taxes.
the distributional share between federal and provincial governments have completely reversed. Provincial governments now take 61 per cent of total taxes collected from corporations compared to 39 per cent in 1950.
the proportion of corporate taxes to the GDP was 9.2 per cent in 1960; that increased to 13.2 per cent in 1999.
The empirical evidence is clear. Given the increase in corporate taxes over the past 50 years, and their 4 per cent rise as share of GDP, Canadian corporations are certainly paying their tax dues. Payments may even amount to more than what could be sustained in terms of global competitive pressure, especially from the United States.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.asp?rnext=93

A company is very similar to a centrally planned economy, albeit one that competes with many thousands of others and on a much smaller and specific scale. Democratization in such an organizational system ultimately proves to be a negative and makes the company unable to function as properly or efficently as it could with a clear-cut chain of command that is fairly rigid.

In which case the workers can choose for themselves to have a "clear-cut chain of command", if it indeed is more efficient.

The important thing is that an economy based on social production is not controlled by private individuals; that is nothing but tyranny.

The empirical evidence is clear. Given the increase in corporate taxes over the past 50 years, and their 4 per cent rise as share of GDP, Canadian corporations are certainly paying their tax dues. Payments may even amount to more than what could be sustained in terms of global competitive pressure, especially from the United States.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.asp?rnext=93

wow, is there anything that canada can't do better than the u.s.? down here we've got over a third of the biggest and most profitable firms not only not paying taxes in a given year, but actually recieving money from the government instead. and most of the rest pay significantly less than what they owe.

Presumably, when something goes wrong, the bosses carry the responsibility, therefore, they merit more money. In actual fact, when something goes wrong, the shit goes downhill. The bosses basically get paid for being able to delegate things, like blame.

wow, is there anything that canada can't do better than the u.s.? down here we've got over a third of the biggest and most profitable firms not only not paying taxes in a given year, but actually recieving money from the government instead. and most of the rest pay significantly less than what they owe.
And as part of evading those taxes and pleading for government assistance, they hide them by paying their CEOs shitloads of money, which was the whole point of the original statement.

And as part of evading those taxes and pleading for government assistance, they hide them by paying their CEOs shitloads of money, which was the whole point of the original statement.

maybe, but it seems like a lot of work since they don't pay on their reported profits anyway. i mean, if they can avoid paying taxes while keeping the profits going to the shareholders directly, why bother mucking about with the ceo's pay? something else is at work, and it can't be blamed on taxes.

i agree that the government does much to encourage this sort of corporate bullshit, but not accidentally or as a byproduct of evil anti-business regulation.

I'm sure people will start calling me a commie, but I have been thinking about this for some time and it doesn't really make sense to me.
Why do bosses and CEO's etc. make such ridiculous amounts of money?
Of course they have more responsibilities then regular employees and factory workers, but a factory worker for example works his ass off and barely has any money left for when he retires. His boss can sit in his chair for years (doing stressy work, I admit) and retire at 50-55 and live on, playing golf.
Even from a capitalist point of view it's hard to explain: If bosses would make less money, the company would make more!
What if we just sacked the bosses and take over the companies? that way the employees situation would improve greatly, better social security, better pension plans, less need for firing, etc.

Really, I wish to hear a good argument for high paychecks for bosses


(I'll add a poll for fun)

CAUSE HE IS THE BOSS!!!!

and if you fuck up it's his/her ass too.

why does the big lion get all the food it wants...cause it can...harsh but true.

Well Let See They Get Stock Options And Make Millions A Year - My Ceo Of My Company Was Getting A Pay Cheque Annually At 3 Million Dollars - And He Was Retired - Now If Any Can Justify This He Is God! A Highly Trained And Educated Surgeon Whom Is At The Top Of The Echlon Doesn't Make Millions In Some Cases Well Into The 3 Digits In The Millions - Now Consider At What Price Do You Have To Charge For You're Product To Pay Them And Don't Forget The Trickle Down Effect - Do They Deserve The Atronomical Amounts Of Monies They Make - You Have To Lay It At The Carpet Of The Share Holders - They Want Dividend Cheques And They Don't Care Who Eats And Who Doesn't - Is This Capitilism Or Simply The Same Old Masters And Peasants As Written In The Biblical Times And Probably Before - Take A Look At The Tax System - Who Designed It And For Whom - And Believe Me I'm Not Jealuos Or Envious Just Appauld That Some People Make More Money Than Some Countries Collect In Taxes In A Year - Are They Worth It? Hardly - I Work In The Broadcast Industry And Enjoy It Extremely And Have No Desire For It If Given The Oppurtunity - However I Would Not Be To Upset If They Gave Me 6 Mos Of Their Wages - I Could Retire And This Would Create An Employment Oppurtunity For Someone -

Well Let See They Get Stock Options And Make Millions A Year - My Ceo Of My Company Was Getting A Pay Cheque Annually At 3 Million Dollars - And He Was Retired - Now If Any Can Justify This He Is God! A Highly Trained And Educated Surgeon Whom Is At The Top Of The Echlon Doesn't Make Millions In Some Cases Well Into The 3 Digits In The Millions - Now Consider At What Price Do You Have To Charge For You're Product To Pay Them And Don't Forget The Trickle Down Effect - Do They Deserve The Atronomical Amounts Of Monies They Make - You Have To Lay It At The Carpet Of The Share Holders - They Want Dividend Cheques And They Don't Care Who Eats And Who Doesn't - Is This Capitilism Or Simply The Same Old Masters And Peasants As Written In The Biblical Times And Probably Before - Take A Look At The Tax System - Who Designed It And For Whom - And Believe Me I'm Not Jealuos Or Envious Just Appauld That Some People Make More Money Than Some Countries Collect In Taxes In A Year - Are They Worth It? Hardly - I Work In The Broadcast Industry And Enjoy It Extremely - I Have No Desire Tobe At The Top Of The Food Chainif Given The Oppurtunity - However I Would Not Be To Upset If They Gave Me 6 Mos Of Their Wages - I Could Retire And This Would Create An Employment Oppurtunity For Someone - They Will Say They Work Hard - Check Out The Golf Courses During The Week It's Not All Retired People - I Guess In A General Sense They Are Retired - Except While They Feast On Pheasant Under Glass - It's Macaroni And Cheese For The Common People - Realistically How Money Do You Really Need To Survive - Food, Clothes, Roof Over You're Head , One Car Per Household , And 3 Mos Vacation Just Like The Europeans Get And They Also Get 3 Mos Vacation Pay And 3 Mos Wages And Have The Option To Stay At The Company Owned Resort For Free - The Only Thing They Have To Pay For Is Their Meals - There Are Some Pretty Good Companies Over There - They Want There Employees Tobe Happy And Prosperous - Only Then Are They Productive - People In North Americans Are Distorted In There Thinking - Most Are Greatful They Have A Job - When You Spend Half You're Life Working For Someone You Should Be Asking The Company What Are They Going Todo For You - Since You'll Be Making Money For Them - And Lets Assume This Tobe Correct Otherwise You Wouldn't Be Working There - I Can Say More But It Would Probably Fill 10 Pages - Life Is Short And It Shouldn't Be The Few Who Get To Live Like Royalty - Or Better - That's Why They Gave Us Tv - It Is Now Used To Dumb Down Society - Mindless Sitcoms And Commercials And Marketing Everywhere, Which Is A Form A Stress In Itself - Might Be A Good Topic For Another Thread - Drink Banana Beer And You'll Get Laid - Probably A Poor Example Because Beer Does Work - Candy Is Dandy But Liqour Is Quicker - On That - Fini

My problem is with the "tone" or "ideaology" expressed in the OP - like it is "bad" to make obscene amounts of money. Why is it bad to make "so much money?" If the company is willing to pay it and can afford to do so, why is it wrong?
If the $ is being paid in a way that threatens the financial future of the company, sure, then it needs to be changed. But if the company can afford it, then why should we give a damn?

Because You Pay For It As A Consumer And In Taxes - And In Employment - How Much Manufactoring Is Now Done Overseas In In Border Countries At Slave Wages - And Why Did The Ceo Get The Raise - Not Hard To Answer That One - Profit - Big Profit -

Because You Pay For It As A Consumer And In Taxes - And In Employment - How Much Manufacturing Is Now Done Overseas In In Border Countries At Slave Wages - And Why Did The Ceo Get The Raise - Not Hard To Answer That One - Profit - Big Profit -