Look, I know everyone points to the top 10 or 1% to say “sure they’re growing faster but look, everyone else is growing too. Just slower, sure.”
But that’s still an increasing gap. A widening gulf between worlds. And I get a sense that this is having a real impact. Evidenced by the new rise of nationalistic populism, or even open flirtations with socialism, it seems to me we are really starting to see the fraying in our social fabric.
Now, I don’t see the Warren idea as a good one. Seems pretty darn vague and open to fashionable notions of “social benefit.”
Oh totally agreed. I just meant in the realm of ‘are we intentionally stripping rights from business owners’ both ways are undoubtedly a check in the Yes column, right?
Agreed. Plus if CEO pay drops 5% I doubt we’ll find that many people that care
Exactly. Why is it, as a society, we have certain values and morals that we see making us a better country yet, we don’t think businesses should be run in a way that reflect those values and morals? Why is there a disconnect between right and wrong when it comes to people and business? Human nature permeates everything we do.
How can we say that if in need, the nation can force a certain group, young males who are not physically or mentally unfit, to go and kill, die or get crippled, defending the nation and its citizens but turn around and tell a business owner that people don’t matter? One group of citizens can be called upon to think of others but the rest of us don’t really have to give a crap about anyone else. It must feel good to be exempt from having the same moral standards that we force upon the young men who protect us. Do we want a nation of Dick Cheneys or Audie Murphys (who was rather short )?
I agree on quarterly financials, but stock is often used as the means to tie compensation to firm performance. If you pay straight salary, they don’t have the same incentive for firm performance. What would you replace stock compensation with?
I think you could argue they’re both a check in the “yes” column if you (general you) think regulation is stripping right from businesses. That’s a pretty grey area, imo. We regulate compensation pretty heavily just more so on the lower end of the scale. Adding additional language to current labor laws to restrict the types of compensation allowed for Issuers (maybe all C corps) does reduce a corporations agency to a degree, but it still allows said corporation and their board to determine who is being compensated and by how much.
So, like, 5% authoritarian…
Probably wouldn’t change anything either.
I also think, whenever this conversation comes up people tend to lose sight of reality a bit. We’re really only talking about MEGA corporations that these enormous compensation packages w/ stock options and what not. McDonald’s is a good example. I think like 40% of their CEOs total comp is something other than salary. That’s just not reality for 99.99% of businesses since 99.99% of businesses aren’t issuers.
I don’t disagree. But I also don’t think the market/capitalism has exactly been an ally for traditional institutions and values. In fact, I think it’s often antagonistic, favoring the highly mobile, hyper-atomistic, entertainment and fashion obsessed consumer-citizen.
It’s not a straw man - it’s a snarky label I made up to amplify a point, that is the uncritical fundamentalist view of the market as the arbiter of all things with godlike powers that are never to be questioned. Learn what a straw man is.
Nation in a debt spiral? Check.
Middle class increasingly priced out of economic security? Checkity check.
Super rich and powerful using their wealth and connections to rig the game in their favor through special privilege, rent-seeking, and sweetheart deals? Double triple check.
Working Americans getting so frustrated they might vote for an alternative to this brand of l capitalism if we don’t get it back in balance?
Mother of all checks.
And their rational interest was to consider durable growth and social relationships. And that changed with the shareholder primacy idea.
Dunno, because that’s not what I said. Smith would be aghast at this morally vacuous brand of capitalism you espouse that refuses to ameliorate some of the aspects of capitalism that injure society.
Yes, but that wouldn’t serve the public interest - that would only serve my private interest. Politics is concerned with what would be in the public interest.
Don’t think there’s a such thing as a public interest to take care of? Okay, but who cares? The adults have been working from this approach for centuries - we have no time for amateur hour. This is why no one buys the snake oil philosophy of hard libertarianism as a governing philosophy.
There was a whole thread on this. But I’ll try again.
Grant Cardone has a private jet, a rolls Royce and vacations at homes that are $115k/week. I have a Ford and I go in with two other families to vacation at a house that’s $1,700/week.
How do you measure performance of the company? Usually, that is stock price.
Most stock compensation options take about 3 years to vest, so it’s not super short term. You could maybe try to eliminate the change in the stock compared to market forces so the stock price doesn’t go up (or down) only due to the industry, but compensation would still be related to stock.
It’s not a troll attempt. It’s just the idea that the only incentive for people is money. I would rather make a million dollars a year running a business than 2 million picking strawberries.
Also, can you lose your job at any moment? Is there anything stopping you from ending up on welfare? Does Cardone worry about that being a possibility?
)?