Purpose of any Company is Profits - screw the workers

[sugarpop]

The bust has not solved it. The bust hurt many middle class and upper middle class people very bad, much more so than the people at the top. Many people lost their entire savings and retirement funds. The bust has also hit the middle class by job losses. How can you even say that with a straight face?

Now as a result of the bust, we might actually have some caps put in place that will make the playing field more even, but I'm not holding my breath.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I'm not holding my breath.

Please do it may solve a whole host of other issues.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Please do it may solve a whole host of other issues.

Was that really called for?

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

The bust has not solved it. The bust hurt many middle class and upper middle class people very bad, much more so than the people at the top. Many people lost their entire savings and retirement funds. The bust has also hit the middle class by job losses. How can you even say that with a straight face?

Now as a result of the bust, we might actually have some caps put in place that will make the playing field more even, but I'm not holding my breath.

Are you suggesting a salary cap in the private sector?

like.....no corporate employee can make over 500k per year, or something like that?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Are you suggesting a salary cap in the private sector?

like.....no corporate employee can make over 500k per year, or something like that?

Not really. I would prefer something where the top dog can't make over a certain % of the average dogs. In addition, any bonuses should be tied to the health of the company in the form of stocks, to be paid out at a later date. That way, if the company does well, everyone does well, and the top dog wouldn't be making decisions that would be based on greed for himself, but rather what is in the best interests of the company as a whole.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Not really. I would prefer something where the top dog can't make over a certain % of the average dogs. In addition, any bonuses should be tied to the health of the company in the form of stocks, to be paid out at a later date. That way, if the company does well, everyone does well, and the top dog wouldn't be making decisions that would be based on greed for himself, but rather what is in the best interests of the company as a whole.

suppose for a moment that you start a company that sells widgets.

from the ground. you build this company up to the point that it goes public, and you sell 49% ownership in stocks and there is a board of directors and you are the CEO. The company makes $20 Billion profit every year.

Who decides how much of it you get to keep?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

suppose for a moment that you start a company that sells widgets.

from the ground. you build this company up to the point that it goes public, and you sell 49% ownership in stocks and there is a board of directors and you are the CEO. The company makes $20 Billion profit every year.

Who decides how much of it you get to keep?

Sugar - You avoided this question - artfully so, but I am interested in hearing your opinion of who would have this responsibility.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Sugar - You avoided this question - artfully so, but I am interested in hearing your opinion of who would have this responsibility.

I honestly don't know classic. I wouldn't have a problem with there being a cap on my salary to make sure my employees were failry paid.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I honestly don't know classic. I wouldn't have a problem with there being a cap on my salary to make sure my employees were failry paid.

You might think differently if you worked hard all your life to make the company what it is from the ground up.