Comment on CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978
Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
The funny thing is, you can remove a CEO, and the company will still keep running. Remove workers and the company can’t function. Looks like “compensation” is going to the wrong people.
The CEO is the link between the company and the shareholders.
They get paid by the shareholders to extract as much value as they can from the company to the shareholders.
On the other hand, if the company needs more investment, the CEO is the one who has to attract that investment, too. Otherwise the company will stall or go bankrupt.
If you can't keep your business afloat on its own, if you require injections of cash from investors to avoid bankruptcy, that business should fail.
I'm absolutely sick to death of hearing about "a responsibility to the shareholders", used as it is to justify all kinds of immorality, exploitation, and predation.
A company that makes a 0$ profit and 0$ loss should be considered a successful one. Such a company would manage to pay all its costs (including wages, r&d, etc.) and function at peak efficiency.
I disagree. Some profit is good. It allows you to keep a coffer so you can keep afloat in bad years, as well as to buy back stocks for the employees. Once employee owned any profit can be voted on to either be added to budgets or distributed out amongst the employees.
Year over year growth is completely unsustainable. They should be content with making healthy profits in good times, and making any profit at all during times of recession.
If you can’t keep your business afloat on its own, if you require injections of cash from investors to avoid bankruptcy, that business should fail. And there’s nothing wrong with a business stalling, in my view. There should be limits to growth.
This is the right answer.
In the US there’s a legal obligation to the shareholders, it’s not just as simple as a sick owner culture trumpeting platitudes. To fix this problem we need to address both the culture and the legal frameworks: …harvard.edu/…/towards-accountable-capitalism-rem…
Investors are primarily for M&A when brought on late.
Investors brought in early still deserve a day, because it is partially their company.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You could replace the work of most boardroom executives with a well trained AI tbh.
thefartographer@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Not that well trained. Pretty sure SmarterChild would suffice.
MustrumR@kbin.social 1 year ago
In some cases (cough Twitter cough), you can skip the whole software thing and replace the pure silicone of a computer with any slab digged out from the ground.
Pet rock would do less damage for sure.
SCB@lemmy.world 1 year ago
A board is there to make decisions in their own best interest as key stakeholders. They’re not paid for services.
Similarly, no company of any real size can survive without a CEO because their job is to work with investors and execute a single vision.
Sometimes I feel like no one on this site actually works in a corporation. Like, these roles are defined. You can just look up what these roles exist for if you don’t know.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I did say “most of the work of”. I did not say “replace the people of”. I meant only that most of the basic analysis and troubleshooting of a business’ fundamentals could easily be done with an appropriately tailored model.
_number8_@lemmy.world 1 year ago
isn’t making a decision a service?