Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000cs
Or they are competing for capital, which requires higher returns for shareholders (who want returns that “beat” inflation and compensate for risk). Look at not-for-profit companies (not NGOs), like the telecom, electric and insurance cooperatives. They are motivated to provide excellent service and low cost - there is no profit motive. But they still have had to raise prices.
The issue with CEO pay vs the lowest or average pay is an indicator of increasing efficiency and scale. Using the McDonalds examples in this thread, if the CEO or company could only effectively manage 1,000 locations in one country instead of 40,000+ globally, he would be paid a lot less and the pay multiple would be much lower. That said, I think there is an issue with boards that are a little too close to the CEO and the way CEO compensation is “benchmarked” in the boardroom (by reputable firms, not management or the board itself), resulting in higher pay than necessary. As with the McDonnalds example, however, this has almost no direct impact on their prices or their profitability (so it is an easy board decision).
|
Yeah none of this is correct. It's a fiscal system based on deflating the value of money yearly to push us further into surfdom (combined with increased automation) where eventually we will NEED the government to provide the most basic needs.
All you did was describe the most recent official narrative, but it doesn't address what the actual issue is and what their goal is. Money isn't the motivator, it's a tool.
They system is working exactly as designed.