ponyboy
baseball, baseball, baseball
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2010
- Messages
- 461
The problem is that most of them are NOT doing "what they get paid to do". Many examples are out there of CEOs continuing to walk away with unheard of compensation packages and golden parachutes despite doing a terrible job.
There are a lot of people that are bad at the jobs they are hired for. How is that even relevant? I could use that same example for paying minimum wage workers even less since many of them are bad at the minimum wage tasks they're hired to do.
The very stockholders you mention have no voice in the boardrooms these days. Corporate boardrooms have become the new taxation without representation. That ostentatious CEO pay package is a tax paid by the real owners of the company, the stockholders, to compensate a "leader" based on a manufactured concept of market price. Guess who appoints the board members who vote on that executive pay package? The CEO. It is nearly impossible for stockholders to affect the choice of board members. The vast majority of stocks are managed by large, institutional investment firms. They have other interests (such as securing the company's 401K business) that preclude them from wanting to anger the CEO. That's why we have so many "rubber stamp" corporate boards these days.
We're setting our system up to fail because it currently doesn't reward good performance. Here's are a couple of really good articles I suggest you read: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380799/
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07...th-little-success/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
By cleverly turning the "income inequality" conversation into one about minimum wage instead of executive compensation the politicians have done exactly what they set out to do - distract people from asking why the bankers who tanked the economy are still not being prosecuted. It's all just bread and circuses.
In many cases common stock has no voting rights. When a person buys that type of stock then they know up front what they are getting before they buy it. If you're a shareholder and the company executives or board of directors are doing something that you don't agree with then you are free to sell your stock at any time. That is the resolution for that problem.
People buy stock in anticipation of making money, if they believe that due to the actions of the CEO or the board of directors that they will not make as much money as they hoped or that they will lose money then they should sell that stock. Buying stock is a simple business transaction with the rules for both sides plainly laid out. If you don't like the rules then don't play the game. What's great about America is that you can even start your own game if you want where you get to make the rules. You're absolutely free to start a corporation where executives get paid as little as possible. It might be hard to find people to hire (and if you thought the high paid ones do a bad job just wait till you see how bad the bottom of the barrel ones are) but you get to do it your own way.
The government has no business sticking it's nose in the matter of how much money a company wants to pay it's executives. As long as it's public knowledge and the stock buying public is made aware of these decisions then they know where the company money is going and they can make their own informed decision on what they want to do. We don't need big brother Uncle Sam deciding if someone is getting paid too much or not. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to regulate executive salaries?
Why do people hate businesses so much? Why don't I ever hear people crying out to cut Miley Cyrus's pay or that we need a congressional investigation on why Justin Beiber makes so much money?