2 ms·
I don't really like such socialist ideas, but, really the company's directors aren't helping shareholders much by paying the CEO of Starbucks so much. Is he rea
by osigurdson 2y ago
I don't really like such socialist ideas, but, really the company's directors aren't helping shareholders much by paying the CEO of Starbucks so much. Is he really going to have any impact? This is Starbucks after all. Is he going to come up with a new killer coffee flavour or snack? I guarantee this person will make zero difference for shareholders. Static companies like Starbucks shouldn't even bother with a CEO.
- NickC25 2y agoIt's not really socialist to say that a massive corporation, that already profits in the billions, doesn't really need to have a CEO that's compensated to the tune of 10s of millions annually, and also gets a massive stock grant. It's common sense if we want to keep capitalism as we know it from eating itself. And yes, no new CEO of such an organization will fundamentally grow the company to a large enough degree that small shareholders will see significant gains. It's something we should have an AI do. I've met a few CEOs of massive companies, and the ones that don't really have a product/engineering background are good talkers who happen to know how to delegate really well. They aren't in the hotseat to grow the company, they are there to keep the company going on its current path.
- piva00 2y agoIt's not a socialist idea, there's nothing in that idea pushing towards collective ownership of the means of production by workers. The idea that high-earners should contribute more to the society enabling them to even accumulate such wealth is not socialist on any principle.