3 ms·

This isn't going to get fixed as long as the individuals at the top still become multimillionaires/billionaires even if the companies in question go kaput. The

by jowiar 11y ago

This isn't going to get fixed as long as the individuals at the top still become multimillionaires/billionaires even if the companies in question go kaput. The penalties for doing this need to be: (1) Confiscation of individual wealth, and (2) Prison

fweespeech 11y ago
That isn't the answer. Many of the people who you'd target don't have the kind of control needed to actually "fix" it. Its generally a cultural problem with the company and the company is the target that should be destroyed in the extreme case where (2) would be appropriate [which nukes the wealth of the shareholders].
- jowiar 11y ago
  But the cultural problem comes from somewhere. And if we're going to reward those who "succeed" with unimaginable riches, the penalties for failing at that scale need to be equally harsh. Alternatively, we realize this, and thus implement a tax structure such that we have no more billionaires.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    Billionaires are largely investors/shareholders. Targeting the shareholders in civil suits will encourage better/more defensive CEO choices and other board decisions. Direction stems from the top and the top is the Board [elected by shareholders] and not the CEO. Pretending otherwise is simply ignorance.
- hobs 11y ago
  So who has control? Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company? Why should they be rewarded for hurting us? How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions? I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities. I definitely think that they should be tied more closely together if we want something like market forces to help resolve the problems at hand instead of paying people to effect NO change (or effectively random change).
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    > So who has control? The shareholders who appoint the board who appoints the CEO. > Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company? No CEO has 100% control of their company. > Why should they be rewarded for hurting us? You should have picked better. Like any employer, you are responsible for the ultimate cost of the actions of your employees. The title doesn't magically change that. > How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions? You should have the Board fire the CEO if you believe the CEO is the problem. It isn't like shareholders have no recourse. Ultimately, the Board/shareholders are the CEO's boss. The buck stops there as far as who is responsible for employing everyone at the company [including the CEO]. Simply because you want a scapegoat doesn't change where the power rests. > I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities. Yes, shareholders push for profits before other factors and have abrogated their civil responsibility by not picking differently. Instead, shareholders pick people that they think will maximize their personal wealth. Similarly, the C-suite is heavily compensated in stock and destruction and/or value loss of said stock impacts their personal financial decision directly. If you truly are concerned, you can always "lock" stock compensation for N years to keep the CEO from selling it so short sighted decisions will bite them on the ass even after they left their post.

by jowiar 11y ago

fweespeech 11y ago

That isn't the answer. Many of the people who you'd target don't have the kind of control needed to actually "fix" it. Its generally a cultural problem with the company and the company is the target that should be destroyed in the extreme case where (2) would be appropriate [which nukes the wealth of the shareholders].

jowiar 11y ago
But the cultural problem comes from somewhere. And if we're going to reward those who "succeed" with unimaginable riches, the penalties for failing at that scale need to be equally harsh. Alternatively, we realize this, and thus implement a tax structure such that we have no more billionaires.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  Billionaires are largely investors/shareholders. Targeting the shareholders in civil suits will encourage better/more defensive CEO choices and other board decisions. Direction stems from the top and the top is the Board [elected by shareholders] and not the CEO. Pretending otherwise is simply ignorance.
hobs 11y ago
So who has control? Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company? Why should they be rewarded for hurting us? How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions? I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities. I definitely think that they should be tied more closely together if we want something like market forces to help resolve the problems at hand instead of paying people to effect NO change (or effectively random change).
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > So who has control? The shareholders who appoint the board who appoints the CEO. > Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company? No CEO has 100% control of their company. > Why should they be rewarded for hurting us? You should have picked better. Like any employer, you are responsible for the ultimate cost of the actions of your employees. The title doesn't magically change that. > How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions? You should have the Board fire the CEO if you believe the CEO is the problem. It isn't like shareholders have no recourse. Ultimately, the Board/shareholders are the CEO's boss. The buck stops there as far as who is responsible for employing everyone at the company [including the CEO]. Simply because you want a scapegoat doesn't change where the power rests. > I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities. Yes, shareholders push for profits before other factors and have abrogated their civil responsibility by not picking differently. Instead, shareholders pick people that they think will maximize their personal wealth. Similarly, the C-suite is heavily compensated in stock and destruction and/or value loss of said stock impacts their personal financial decision directly. If you truly are concerned, you can always "lock" stock compensation for N years to keep the CEO from selling it so short sighted decisions will bite them on the ass even after they left their post.