3 ms·
>it's just considered a cost of doing business to be robbed blind by the executive team. Who are they robbing? Shareholders! But shareholders choose to be shar
by pravda 10y ago
>it's just considered a cost of doing business to be robbed blind by the executive team.
Who are they robbing? Shareholders! But shareholders choose to be shareholders. You don't like what the executives are up to, you can sell your shares.
> private armies to put down, via deadly force, anyone perceived as a threat to the company's profits.
Ok, now you are being inconsistent. You think it's wrong for executives to be paid above-market wages, but you think it acceptable for employees to be paid above-market wages. Every dollar paid to an employee above market wage comes from shareholders!
But none from taxpayers. All out of corporate profits.
- ubernostrum 10y agoOk, now you are being inconsistent. You think it's wrong for executives to be paid above-market wages, but you think it acceptable for employees to be paid above-market wages. Nope, perfectly consistent. If one group gets to vote themselves a raise, all groups should get to. Or, more rigorously: if we're going to introduce artificial legally-blessed structures to allow people to pool their resources in order to accomplish things, or wield power in the market, that they couldn't when acting alone, then... I think we should be consistent about it. The corporation exists as an artificial legally-blessed structure for pooling of capital, and the union exists as an artificial legally-blessed structure for pooling of labor. I don't see a way to argue, from a consistent moral/ethical position, for allowing one to exist while forbidding the other. And similarly, the fewer regulations we place on one of these types of entities, the fewer we should place on the other.