I've got nothing against capitalism, but why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary?
Wouldn't all that extra money be better off reinvested into the business and give pay rises, which would boost employee morale, productivity and subsequently business profits?
>pic unrelated.
yes it would that's why we have to go natsoc
>why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary?
This is not a real number.
>Wouldn't all that extra money be better off reinvested into the business
Yes that's usually what profit is used for.
Any other questions?
It usually is....
The issue is largely nfalse andnonenof reporting. When a CEO (who might not necessarily be a shareholder or on the board or have much of any ownership or controlling interests but let's assume they do) receives their payment as a coporparate dividend THAT is when the stats are made and media narrative is set. They never tell you what happens afterward.
So let's say you receive 600,000. The media goes omg he made over half a million! What a piece of shit! End of report. They never go, oh but then they re-invested 500,000 back into the company.
IRL example, business I work with sold a bunch of its assets off and each of the owners made $24 million. WTF right?
Wrong, there were tons of fees and expenses and other parties who go a slice.
Then then remaining money was used to re-structuring then expand the company with a dozen or so overseas offices.
It was also used to start 4 other companies.
Made you will never hear anything past "CEO Joe made $24 million while Jamal eats from the dollar menu! Communism when?!?"
Moreover you have a right to the things you own. Go fuck yourself.
I don't give a flying FUCK about how much capitalists earn. Why the hell do people care? You should have a problem with them funding all these globalist organisations, advocating for multiculturalism, screwing over entire nations by importing non-white labour and making us reliant on countries like India and China for our industrial production. Not to mention wanting to fuck the environment and health laws just so they can dump random toxic shit in the air and ocean.
>Wouldn't all that extra money be better off reinvested into the business and give pay rises
That's a great idea. How about you and the rest of the communists cob together and start buying stocks in whatever corporation you feel is oppressing you. Once you collectively own 51% of voting stock you can pay your janitors 100,000 a year and hire a CEO that'll work for 50,000 and see how it goes.
You fuckwits are full of great ideas of how to spend other people's money for your virtue signaling but never put your own time or money on the line.
I've always thought a maximum wage (say 100x the wage of the lowest paid employee) would do more social justice than minimum wage, but automation is slowly going to make either case somewhat moot very soon.
What is the incentive to be the CEO if not money
why don't they go into the homes of everyone that makes say over 200 grand, and like take everything valueble and melt it down into bars and then everyone gets part of the bar
because there company has sold enough goods to costumers to pay him that.
>and subsequently business profits
Why would they give a shit if they don't see the majority of those profits?
Nobody is worth 1000 times more than the normie wagecuck, unless some once-in-a-generation-rocket-scientist.
But if you ban it soon they will find a way to increase their bonus, offshore.
>I've got nothing against capitalism, but why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary?
They worked hard to earn their position. If the workers want to earn more, they should work harder too.
>This is not a real number.
>In between 1978 and 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO pay increased by almost 1,000%, according to a report released on Sunday by the Economic Policy Institute. Meanwhile, typical workers in the U.S. saw a pay raise of just 11% during that same period.
>Yes that's usually what profit is used for.
No thats not what CEOs salaries are used for
>I've got nothing against capitalism, but why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary?
> Wouldn't all that extra money be better off reinvested into the business and give pay rises, which would boost employee morale, productivity and subsequently business profits?
CEOs are elected by a board of representatives of their shareholders or by the owner of the buisness.
The owner or his reperesentatives decide the CEOs wage.
High wages for these officials are an initiative for them to work harder and to avoid corruption cause they aren't going to want to risk loosing their cash cow for some minor benefits in comparison.
It's not perfect as most humans don't think logically.
Like Trump with his daddy money? Capitalism in a meritocratic society is great but this isn't what we have now.
SMALL LOAN
Trump turned 1 million dollars into 8+ billion dollars. That takes a lot of hard work. I'd like to see you do the same thing.
yes it would.
But you don't understand, those people KNOW they are worthless, and they know that once people find out that, they will never get a job again, so they make deals, and they shake hands, and pay themselves as much as possible through as many tricks as possible before they get kicked out.
The Japanese got it right, that's why they're the best country in this shit rock.
Of course it helps having an hegemonic country, unlike the filthy generic fried burger enchilada in murica.
>why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary
Why shouldnt they?
Companies find talented people to run their companies. If you dont give proper incentivez to keep the talented people where they are, your company suffers.
If you don't pay them that much then some other company will, and slowly all the talent bleeds away from your business.
The additional idea that if you think a CEO making critical decisions for a massive company doesn't warrant a much higher salary than some easily replaceable janitor, you're fucked in the head
I do agree with moves like when Shigeru Miyamoto took a huge pay cut for a while after the wiiu was a colossal failure, but it's definitely a false equivalency
also terrible idea, if i was in that position, I'd move my company immediately to somewhere else where I could make profits. that's shooting yourself in the foot
His father worked hard and provided that opportunity to his child.
Should it be illegal to help your children?
>Trump turned 1 million dollars
Thats false though. He also inherited a shitload of money, not to mention having access to his fathers connections
They shouldn't. Under a fascist government this would not be allowed.
>turns a million dollars into a multibillion dollar company
>capitalism doesnt work
Flag checks out go off yourself Francois
Yup he started with much more money and wen bankrupt several times.
I have much more respect with people who actually started from scratch because it is much harder when you don't have the money and connections.
>Inheriting money after already being successful
>Helping your son become successful
It's almost like some people work hard in life for their kid's sake, bucko.
>The million dollar small loan meme again
Look what he did was impressive but lets be truthful
What I'm saying is people keep coming out with this line that he started with only a million dollars and got to where he is all by himself, its not true
Except I've never said capitalism doesn't work, dear cuck hiding behind a flag. I said he started with a shitload of money which is much easier that way (much more than 1 millions).
So take that 40k that was invested in you by your parents/government loan officers for college, and if you're on Trump's level, you should have turned it into $320,000,000 by the time you're 70.
>one person gets paid more than another
>waaaaaah
Piss off, Commie scum. Why shouldn't someone be rewarded for their hard, smart work?
Also they're doing different jobs from the "average employee." Is the average employee running a business? No. They're doing some repetitive task under supervision and will be replaced by robots. Not so with CEOs.
Take your head out of your ass. You want someone who mops the piss off the hospital floor to be paid the same as a surgeon, probably because you'll never be a surgeon.
Enjoy your mediocrity.
He did worse than putting the money into an index fund.
That is, he did worse than doing nothing.
>You want someone who mops the piss off the hospital floor to be paid the same as a surgeon, probably because you'll never be a surgeon.
Don't put words in peoples mouths
Very few (possibly none) self-made billionaires today started from literally rags to riches. You think Bill Gates was bad off before he started Microsoft? Fuck no. He had the opportunity to work with microcomputers long before anyone else because of his parents and that gave him a leg up.
Trump's dad was not hurting for money, that does not in any way change the fact that Trump turned millions into billions.
Trump owns 500+ businesses. He went bankrupt 11 times. A number of those "bankruptcies" were a restructuring...as in filed for it just to get a smaller interest rate on the jew loan he took to run it.
retards denying the obvious fact that CEOs are actually paid that much. if you said the sky was blue there'd be someone trying to contradict you on the board.
The long and short of it is that a better CEO has a huge effect on the future of a company. They control hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in revenue, so a CEO that makes good decisions can be worth hundreds of millions more than one that makes bad decisions.
So market forces drive their price up to what their worth. Which in some cases is hundreds of millions.
>Trump is worth close to 10 billion dollars
>he did worse than doing nothing.
Hi Shareblue. Your lies won't work here.
If you are ever looking to start a bussiness you will want that CEO who might back you up with money to have a lot of it.
Its not just market forces, the difference has been increasing dramatically in America
>But pay increases and ratios only tell part of the story. The stark differences are made concrete when translated into dollars and cents. In 1965, CEOs earned an average of $832,000 annually compared to $40,200 for workers. In 2014, CEO pay had risen to an average of $16,316,000 compared to only $53,200 for workers.
If you think that then you are free to start a business and do exactly that.
Trump owns 500+ businesses. He went bankrupt 11 times. A number of those "bankruptcies" were a restructuring...as in filed for it just to get a smaller interest rate on the jew loan he took to run it. Yeah he should've just horded all his money to himself and not created any jobs or built any value. Fuck off
Do the japs control CEO money?
You're confusing profit with paychecks. Nice job, retard.
If you actually think that most CEO's are paid 500 to 1,000 times what the average worker is, you are actually retarded. An "average worker" in the US makes something like 40 grand a year. 500 times that is 20 million, an absurd figure that has no connection to reality.
>Wouldn't all that extra money be better off reinvested into the business and give pay rises, which would boost employee morale, productivity and subsequently business profits?
What you are talking about is employee owned businesses
>The economic contribution of employee ownership in the UK is significant and is growing. Employee ownership delivers 4% of UK GDP annually. Employee owned businesses achieve higher productivity and greater levels of innovation and are more resilient to economic turbulence. They also have more engaged, more fulfilled and less stressed workforces.
They never really took off in America from what I know
pssst, kid, communism isn't the only solution to capitalism *looks at my flag*
>You're confusing profit with paychecks. Nice job, retard.
No OP said wouldn't the money that is used to pay CEOs salaries be better off reinvested
>Wouldn't all that extra money be better off reinvested into the business
Yes that's usually what profit is used for.
Im talking about what OP is saying
>capitalism is a solution to capitalism
What did he mean by this?
>I've got nothing against capitalism, but why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary?
People earn what they are worth.
>Wouldn't all that extra money be better off reinvested into the business and give pay rises, which would boost employee morale, productivity and subsequently business profits?
No.
The free market always works better than a corrupt statist plutocrat-created system of tyrrany
Most are unsurprised at this elemental truth
you fag
>I've got nothing against capitalism, but why should CEOs be paid 500 - 1000 times their average employees salary?
there's probably less than 500 ceo's in the world who make that money relative to their employees. and who cares what private businesses do anyway
Why don't you do the math yourself. Pick a company. Look up the salary of the CEO. Look up the number of employees of the company. Divide the ceos salary by the number of employees. I'll bet you'll be surprised by the results.
>average employees salary
If you're talking about salaries, you really need to give examples and figures. If you mean wage, and the company has an overabundant amount of middle-age workers on minimum wage, whose fault is that really?
>the company has an overabundant amount of middle-age workers on minimum wage, whose fault is that really?
It's the fault of the workers for not working harder and/or learning new skills to get a better job.
>free market exists
>laissez faire capitalism works better than logical outcomes of laissez faire capitalism
What did he mean by this?
>The shabbos goys itt defending capitalism
>the sky was blue
sometimes its grey moron
>I've got nothing against capitalism
Good goy.
This part of your culture is )))unprofitable((( so it must go.
Don't worry about the future, things are cheaper now, that is all that matters!
Here are hundreds of thousands of brown people here to "work", btw. Don't complain about them or you go to prison!
Should the common assebly worker have the same responsibility as a line engineer or the guy running the entire business? No. Hence they get paid less.
Because theyre worth 500 - 1000 times their average employees
>no hoverhand
This is why minimum wage is a lie used to create a never ending narrative of inequality. If they actually wanted to fix the pay system companies should be required to allocate a certain percentage of their earnings to wages. That way employees are incentivized to work towards a successful company. Of course that means that poor performance would be met with low pay
this desu
>be public facing figure of company that can make or break it, responsible for thousands of jobs, millions to billions in revenue, and shareholders
>get shit for making a good salary, expected to make the same as tyrone the fry cook
fpbp
>CEO makes $600,000
>Invests $500,000 into company
>Gets a 10% return
>CEO makes $100,000 guise, nothing to see here!
Troll?
If the Labour market wasn't constantly infused with 3rd world trash you'd get something like that automatically. Companies would actually have to compete for Labour.
Because corporations are run primarily for the benefit of management. Don't try to overcomplicate it, and they'll do all sorts of song and dance to distract you from this, but it's really simple. Only management matters. Not customers, not investors, certainly not staff (unless they're unionized and even then only grudgingly acknowledged). People put up with this state of affairs only because the alternative is even worse - companies being run for the benefit of Politburo instead. Notice in either case, the very last group to the bowl, is staff. That doesn't change unless you unionize.
Because they incur 500 to 1000 times the responsibility. If failure in doing your job means the loss of wealth or possibly employment of 100 others, then your Job is blatantly more important, and should be valued as such.
Get your damn hands off my darling Megumin statist
>Wouldn't all that extra money be better off reinvested
The thing is, the CEO's salary is a piss in the ocean of the company's size and revenue.
A CEO of a large corporation who achieves a 1% higher growth rate has justified a salary of hundreds of millions.
Of course, maybe a low-paid CEO could achieve the same or better. That's a very open and uncertain question and much research has been attempted on it.
But from the point of view of the board and shareholders, even a "huge" CEO salary is actually pretty insignificant next to the strategic choices, planning etc.