3 ms·
I always thought a cap of 100x the lowest paid employee as a raise all boats kind of thing. That said, I think stretch goals with generous monetary incentives
by tracker1 1y ago
I always thought a cap of 100x the lowest paid employee as a raise all boats kind of thing. That said, I think stretch goals with generous monetary incentives should always be possible. If someone increases the value of a company by $10b, I'm not going to be upset if they make $100m, assuming they aren't doing anything shady, immoral or illegal.
- piva00 1y agoWhat would that cap do then? It's almost like that right now, most executive compensation comes from stock packages. Distribute that across all employees as well, relative to their position, just like any profit-sharing system should work: all workers were part of increasing value, without them no CEO/C-level would generate any value. Doesn't management always want loyal people? That's how you make people loyal, paying them for what they achieved, having a stake in the company's future.
- tracker1 1y agoI'm not opposed to profit sharing either. Though, that gets a lot more complicated since the bulk of the increased value goes to shareholders and would have to be an amount of stock to compensate employees without reducing shareholder value, or causing a stock value decline, are these "new" shares created, are they classed different than other shares, what about tax implications, etc.