You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Golden Parachutes

in #goldenparachutes6 years ago

The argument for high CEO wages I hear, even in 'anarchist' groups (from anarcho capitalists) is that the CEO is responsible for making or breaking the company and so must be highly skilled and thus highly remunerated. It's all well and good for them to have a higher wage than the average employee, but to have hundreds of times more is obscene.

When we combine this situation with the reality that most people are forced to get involved with mortgages and credit cards (fake debt) - we have nothing more than plantation slavery with a different form.

This remains one of the best videos I have seen on this topic:

Sort:  

As an an-cap myself, the economic "defense" of such high salaries for CEOs comes down to how easy it would be to replace one. The situation becomes more obvious if you compare the salaries of professional basketball players and teachers. Society actually values teachers more, but the athletes get the big bucks. The salary isn't based on how much society values them, or even on how much the team values them, but on how ridiculously difficult it is to find new basketball talent. Meanwhile, if a teacher were to quit her job tomorrow, there's a long line of people qualified to fill her place. But even this argument doesn't explain the enormity of the disparity which, again, goes back to the fact that these companies are bloated to a degree that normal market conditions wouldn't permit. This defense/explanation applies more logically to the average disparity of CEO to worker salary, which is about 3:1.

I suspect this idea comes largely from people who haven't spent much time with CEOs. In my experience, many of them are not exactly experts in their job - in many cases they are not much better at making CEO decisions than the average 'smart' employee. I think perhaps a more objective measure of ability would help, such as IQ testing - although even these are not fool-proof (paradoxical irony intended.. lol).

As far as I am concerned, while the corruption of government does have some baring on the bloat and overpay - at the same time, the overpay is also fueled simply by a greed and heartlessness that would exist with or without state presence.

Oh absolutely - the greed is there in all of us, unfortunately. The difference is that market forces can keep the greed in check while the government paves greed a road.

Having worked in numerous industries, with a variety of people on all levels of society - I have long ago learned that those who are the most greedy/sick/controlling tend to gravitate to whatever position they can exploit to further their ends - whether that be government, corporations or elsewhere. Having seen the reality that governments tend to be little more than extensions of the capitalist corporations (given varying forms of camouflage), I don't see much likelihood of improvement simply through the deregulation of capitalism. Real change starts in the heart, not in the wallet.

My belief is that market forces give us much more regulation of greed than governments. In fact, government regulation is often enacted to remove the market force of competition and increase barriers to industry entry. As an an-cap, I wish we had more regulation than the government will ever achieve (or permit).

I see that those who seek the conglomeration of wealth and 'power' (power over) will use whatever form and tools are available to them to achieve their aims. When such 'wealth' is able to dictate who gets to 'compete' then there is no real competition - just as we see with so many industries today that are essentially all controlled by small groups at the top of their pyramids and where these groups often intertwine. The situation is more like a gang war than a 'market' and those with billions to lose often choose to work together, rather than compete and risk it all (even including assassination). In other words, as long as there are 'successful' capitalists (on a grand scale), then the system will produce dysfunction on a grand scale.

Exactly, we haven't seen true market forces play out for... ever. Even here in the US the first law ever passed was a protectionist tariff for business. But I hesitate to call this situation "capitalism." It's corporatism. Capitalism is simply a form of economic growth based on capital (savings).

Well, I am really saying that 'true market forces' will produce the same results - since the influence of corrupt groups will always aim to create the same outcome. If by 'true market forces' we mean an enlightened population, free from mind control and exploitation, then fine - but I feel that such a population will create far better systems than the finance/capital based ones we have known.