Originally Posted by
rickair7777
That worked OK, with some caveats, back when senior management had already spent 30 years at the company before being put in charge and had a vested interest in the long-term health and well-being of the company. The trickle-down concept provided jobs and capital appreciation for those who invested.
Nowdays, we have managers with an average tenure of 30 months, no knowledge or interest in the company or it's business, and only one goal: drive up stock prices, catch the crest of the wave, exercise options, bail when it all comes crashing down, and move on to the next victim. Employees lose, long term investors lose, and the nation as a whole loses when once-viable businesses are dismantled and offshored.
The concept of "shareholder value at all costs" is flawed, and was never wholly acccepted in industry...it is the battle-cry of the worst of the sociopaths and villians. Besides, what exactly IS "shareholder value"? Short-term manipulations in support of insider trading? Or long-term real capital growth?
Shareholder Value is not one of the ten commandments, nor is it a constitutional concept. If it does not benefit our society, maybe it's time to revise or eliminate it...
I like the idea of corporations having a formal duty to employees and society in general, in addition to shareholders...actually I see that as a win-win, since workers who are treated well and have a personal stake in the enterprise make much better employees than bitter clock-punchers.
If pilots, doctors, military officers, etc have rigorous selection and background requirements, so should officers of large companies...they should need a LICENSE to do that job. It would be based on mandatory education (under and post- graduate) in relevant fields, and specific experience requirements, including leadership at smaller companies before you get to fly the big iron. No ex-cons or high-school gym teachers running corporations valued in the billions!
Seriously? You are basically asking for socialism.
Shareholders own the company whether you like it or not. Without them seeking to make a profit on their shares of your company, you have no job. Businesses do not exist to serve the 'common good.' They serve to make a profit.
With that straight, let's talk about CEOs. CEOs get paid exactly what the shareholders are willing to pay. The job is a very difficult job. If a company that is not doing well needs a new CEO, they have to be willing to pay a large sum to attract what they believe will be a CEO that turns the company around. With the higher chance of failure, talented CEOs are not going to come to a company without high compensation packages. It's all contracted. The 'greedy' CEOs do not come to the company and then write their own packages. So, your beef is with the shareholders who hire the CEO, not the CEO. But, refer back to the beginning of this post. You work for those shareholders. Without their desire to make a profit, you do not have a job.
The ignorance about corporations serving the public good is just Marxist ranting. Free market capitalism has proven to be the most efficient for the exact reason that everybody works in their own best interest. Nobody has your interests in mind better than you do. So, all the stakeholders come together with their own interests and the system works:
Shareholders: hire the best employees for all the jobs that produce the most wealth for the company. Any employee that you pay more than they effectively bring in in revenue is a loss to you. Pay too many people more than they are worth monetarily to your company, and you will eventually go out of business. So, the desire would be to hire the most effective people who produce the most revenue for the company for the lowest price which you can get them to do the most work
Labor: From the CEO down to lowly pilots in our example here, your interest is primarily to get the most compensation with the highest QOL. Notice that your primary interest is usually in direct competition with that of the shareholders.
The competing interests work to form a balance of supply and demand forcing the workers to only charge as much for their services as the market dictates while the evil corporation has to pay at least the amount that the market bears for the labor. If you ask for too much compensation, by definition somebody as equally qualified as you will do the job for less, so the company should hire that person. If the company offers too little compensation, then that means there is another company out there that will seek to take your valuable skills away for a higher price. Over time, these back and forth actions of employees and employers keep the market price of labor at the market price.
Lastly, there is no need to have licensing for CEOs. It's all described above, but basically, the shareholders have the desire to pay a CEO exactly a little less than the value he brings to the company. Likely, those shareholders will not hire somebody not qualified for the job if they desire the company to stay in business. If they make bad decisions and choose the wrong person for the job, it will decrease the value of the company. Too many bad decisions will cause the business to fail. Since a failing business would not bring value to the shareholders, we have to assume that they will not seek to do this. So, in their own 'greed,' the shareholders will always seek the most qualified person that they can afford that they believe will take the company where they think it should go (profits).
The scariest part of your post is that ignorance is a very scary thing. Your obvious lack of education on basic economic principals is the exact reason that liberals can rally support saying Marxist things about evil corporate profits. Did you know those evil profits are the basis of most of our retirement funds? Without the hope of high profits, there is no incentive for businesses to come to market and try their hand. Without those businesses, we have no jobs. Without a job, the only thing you will have is something new to bi%$h about.