Quote:
Originally Posted by pawoSD
I'll never understand what circuit is crossed in the average republican's brain where they will argue that CEO's/executives in this country making hundreds of times the income of the average worker at their respective business makes is "normal" or "ok". What exactly do they do in their job that warrants this level of income? Generally they do far LESS work than those paid massively less. Remember what happens when you repress the little guys for too long, you end up with a very small elite rich class, and an extremely large poor class, and that leads to revolt and uprisings.
The state of morals/business ethics in this country has been on a downward slope that shows no signs of slowing. Greed is rampant.
|
If the CEO of the past ten years at a company had a average of 2% per year of market share growth and overall profits and then another CEO comes in and over five years has a track record of 10% growth and overall profits ... who is more valuable? Obviously the second CEO. Now if the difference between the two translates into $500 million more for the company what are other companies looking to increase their bottom line going to do? Do you think the board of directors at other companies are going to say- "Nah- we won't pay this guy $20 million a year" and then pay a different (lower performing) CEO $2 million a year and see no growth and no increase in profits? If you spend $20 to get $500 is that worth it? Would you refuse to spend $20 so that you get $500 in return?
Now obviously not every CEO does this great performance, but those that do not are going to get fired.