Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith

  • Mood:

CEO Pay Packages -- Say on Pay

Shareholders may eventually -- if the bill is not shot down -- get a say in CEO pay packages. This would be a good thing. It is within the realm of imagination that someone might deserve an astronomical salary for a job brilliantly done. It is wrong for someone to receive an astronomical salary for a job not just badly done, but so badly done that many other people are harmed as a result.

People criticize welfare on the grounds that it removes the penalty for failure. It doesn't really, just lessens the impact very slightly. Well, absurdly high pay and golden-parachute severance packages definitely remove the penalty for failure, which has encouraged and rewarded very risky behavior. Now everyone is paying the price ... except the people responsible. Let's not do this again.
Tags: economics, politics
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 4 comments
From what little I understand about big businesses, they are all completely protected by laws everywhere, and legally allowed to operate like evil, psychopathic crooks. Everything they do is
wrong. And the rich keep on getting richer. And the gap between the poor keeps getting wider and wider. There's no end in sight that I'm aware of. Its a nice idea you are talking about. Just hope it works...
Remember what "unsustainable" means: it can't continue forever. The question is whether the rapacious business practices will end in a rational manner (i.e. through shareholder or court action, etc.) or in the more traditional and historically proven manner (i.e. abused underclass revolting and demolishing their perceived oppressors). I would strongly prefer the former, and am keeping a wary eye on the latter ... particularly given the rise of food riots in recent weeks. I do not like the historical contexts of which this reminds me, not at all.

Deleted comment

I think this would help. It's not a solution all by itself; nothing is. We also need to remove "corporate personhood" and hold companies responsible when they create problems. We need to support small, locally owned and operated businesses which are better for local economies than large chains. We need to frigging STOP EXPORTING so many jobs to other countries. In general, we need to seek sustainable, sane ways of getting our needs met instead of rapacious ways that ultimately do more harm than good.

To solve a huge tangled problem, pick it into small pieces. CEO salary is a loose end that can be grabbed hold of fairly well.

Deleted comment

>>Getting the masses to stay out of Hel-Mart is going to be a big job.<<

That's an example of what typically goes wrong in problem-solving these days: people look at the wrong end of the issue. Most people shop at Wal-Mart because they can't afford to shop elsewhere, not because they really like the store or its policies. Trying to discourage them from shopping there is thus futile; and simply banning the stores would be harmful to low-income people.

The trick is to address the underlying need that drives the problem, and that means backtracking to find it. People shop at Wal-Mart because they're broke. They're broke because they're unemployed, overemployed, and/or forced to buy services (such as health care/insurance) beyond their means. So we need to focus on creating more jobs -- safe, meaningful jobs that pay a living wage; watch the coming boom in green-collar jobs for opportunities. We need to make sure there are alternatives to shopping at Wal-Mart, which means encouraging the growth of competitors: other supermarkets, farmer's markets, etc. and preferably ones that provide good jobs. We also need to see about making basic services affordable or free to people who need them.