4 ms·

>So the money that would have gone to the programmers goes to the upper executive layers instead. This merely moves things around slightly, and if anything furt

>So the money that would have gone to the programmers goes to the upper executive layers instead. This merely moves things around slightly, and if anything further squeezes wealth into the top 1% as opposed to top 10%. Citation needed. Where do you see that it went to the people at the top and wasn't invested back into the company?

talmand 13y ago
Even re-investment back into the company could lead to increased revenues for the people at the top. Regardless, I find it doubtful you could possibly prove such a thing, even if it were true. One just has to assume that such things helps the company, which in turn helps the people who profit from the company doing well.
- hkmurakami 13y ago
  >Even re-investment back into the company could lead to increased revenues for the people at the top. I think the best comparison is Wall Street firms, where a disprportionate chunk of revenues are paid out as compensation to employees. There's longstanding criticism by shareholders that this outsized compensation should be reduced in favor of giving back that value to shareholders. "re-investment" back into Google likely benefits such shareholders (the majority of whom are not employees of the company) than employees.
  - talmand 13y ago
    True, but as the article seems to point out, the people at the top tend to be major shareholders of the company they work for, as well for the other companies in the group that they were board members. So, in that train of thinking, they double-dipped by helping the bottom line of multiple companies of which they profit from with their illegal agreements. Remember how Jobs was considered such a good person for taking a $1 (or something low like that) salary at Apple? How much stake in the Apple stock did he have? He wasn't benefiting from a salary from Apple, but probably was from Apple's profit margins. Profit margins that likely benefited from such agreements.

talmand 13y ago

Even re-investment back into the company could lead to increased revenues for the people at the top. Regardless, I find it doubtful you could possibly prove such a thing, even if it were true. One just has to assume that such things helps the company, which in turn helps the people who profit from the company doing well.

hkmurakami 13y ago
>Even re-investment back into the company could lead to increased revenues for the people at the top. I think the best comparison is Wall Street firms, where a disprportionate chunk of revenues are paid out as compensation to employees. There's longstanding criticism by shareholders that this outsized compensation should be reduced in favor of giving back that value to shareholders. "re-investment" back into Google likely benefits such shareholders (the majority of whom are not employees of the company) than employees.
- talmand 13y ago
  True, but as the article seems to point out, the people at the top tend to be major shareholders of the company they work for, as well for the other companies in the group that they were board members. So, in that train of thinking, they double-dipped by helping the bottom line of multiple companies of which they profit from with their illegal agreements. Remember how Jobs was considered such a good person for taking a $1 (or something low like that) salary at Apple? How much stake in the Apple stock did he have? He wasn't benefiting from a salary from Apple, but probably was from Apple's profit margins. Profit margins that likely benefited from such agreements.