CEO Shaming

[coati]

"[E]xcessive corporate greed" is a subjective valuation ruled by the sin of envy...


If the corporation is too greedy not only does the market shun its output, but investors shy away from its stock. Whenever you see vacuous phrases like that you know you are talking to an economic illiterate who choses to blame their status in life on everyone but themselves.

Oh, what a pretty little theoretical economic world you live in. Everything works out perfectly in this pretty little theoretical world. Just leave it alone, remove all checks, and the GOD of the free and continuously growing market will take care of everything.

 

[underguy1]

Oh, what a pretty little theoretical economic world you live in. Everything works out perfectly in this pretty little theoretical world. Just leave it alone, remove all checks, and the GOD of the free and continuously growing market will take care of everything.

Yeah, because libberdeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Ahh, now I see where you're going. You want to limit the re-numeration that a CEO makes. I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this is under the notion that by limiting the CEO's compensation the employees would be paid more. Statistically you're right, they might make up to $50 more a year.

Not at all. Let the CEO mak 1000Xs the wages of the lowest paid worker. The game is the game, don't hate the player, as I said.

But remember that no how much the CEO is getting paid the value of the enterprise and the return to the capitalists are more.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

There is a reason for that.


Economic democracy is about bleeding heart warm fuzzies. Which is nice...it really is.



Because capitalism works better.

It is not about warm and fuzzy. It is about making money and having the way tat the money is spent after it is made being determined by the whole of the enterprise, and especially but those that created the wealth.

A banking system that was developed around having hundreds of employees treated as shareholders, where all attended the board meetings and had voting rights is one (not the only) way to imagine economic democracy. Not as some sort of big adult day care where everyone gets the same sized cookie as you seem to want to imagine it.

As for Capitalism working better, you need to just look at 2008 and the bust cycles every few years just in this century to see how brittle of a system it is.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It is not about warm and fuzzy. It is about making money and having the way tat the money is spent after it is made being determined by the whole of the enterprise, and especially but those that created the wealth.

If that worked better at making money we would be using that model. But it doesn't work, too many cooks in the kitchen ruins meals faster than anything and the general LEADING an army (as opposed to a gaggle doing whatever it feels like) will come in and kick the dog shit out of that model as it ALWAYS has.

Teams are better with a coach calling the runs, militaries run better with generals conducting battles and companies are better with executives at the helm. If corporate democracy was better at making money we would all be doing that. We wouldn't all be turning our nose up at it in favor of less.

It's like the women making 77c for every mans dollar myth.

If that were really true men simply wouldn't be employed beyond sanitation jobs and the infantry.

For all of capitalism's faults and shortcomings it is pure in it's pursuit of money.

A banking system that was developed around having hundreds of employees treated as shareholders, where all attended the board meetings and had voting rights is one (not the only) way to imagine economic democracy. Not as some sort of big adult day care where everyone gets the same sized cookie as you seem to want to imagine it.

We already have that system in most cases.

If you don't like what you see your vote is to pull your money, leave the company and take your money/assets elsewhere.

If anyone who works for me doesn't like how I'm running shit they can GTFO whenever they want. Go do their own thing and put me out of bidnizz at their earliest convenience. NOTHING stopping them as in most cases.

CEO still eats it though because SOMEBODY has to be the shot caller or the whole thing will take a shit as it has every fucking time ever.

As for Capitalism working better, you need to just look at 2008 and the bust cycles every few years just in this century to see how brittle of a system it is.

2008 was an unintended consequence of warm fuzzy government fuckery, not capitalism.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Not sure if everybody is referring to exactly the same thing here.

As far as I'm concerned, I was referring to the current "corporate mentality" that seems to have permeated many larger institutions. Regardless of who the CEO is trying to appease (some State employee who's above him in state based institutions, or some share-holder in private institutions).
- the consummeristic attitude (employees are just commodities, nombers on a payroll, not people)
- and (this is big here btw) they're potential liabilities instead of assets.

And too many top managers nowadays have Their self-interest in mind, and don't give two straws about the employees or the institution. So they often do the most counterproductive things (both for the employees' morale, and for the institution) if they think that it might help them get a raise or keep their job.
-- I've seen managers try to save money by cutting the budget for absolutely vital things, while they spend lavishly on those stupid team building days, or ask people to listen to their pompous, meaningless in-service talks and so on.
-- Or, if one of their measures leads to some inevitable crisis or things go wrong, they automatically go into an over- the top paranoid mode and start witch hunting. Cause better blame some powerless little guy, instead of people pointing the finger at what They did wrong.

All of that was purely subjective without any actual experience.

It was just broad generalizations sans facts.



Everyone has their own self-interest first.

That's how you get to where you are.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It is not about warm and fuzzy. It is about making money and having the way tat the money is spent after it is made being determined by the whole of the enterprise, and especially but those that created the wealth.

A banking system that was developed around having hundreds of employees treated as shareholders, where all attended the board meetings and had voting rights is one (not the only) way to imagine economic democracy. Not as some sort of big adult day care where everyone gets the same sized cookie as you seem to want to imagine it.

As for Capitalism working better, you need to just look at 2008 and the bust cycles every few years just in this century to see how brittle of a system it is.

bb is right. What you are railing about is not Capitalism, but Central Banking.

 

[Misshotndeep]

This is an interesting topic. Tell me more? Do you feel that this tactic works? If yes, then who is actually benefiting?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This is an interesting topic. Tell me more? Do you feel that this tactic works? If yes, then who is actually benefiting?

I am not a smart man...



... who are you addressing?

 

[Misshotndeep]

I am not a smart man...



... who are you addressing?

It was a general thread wide inquiry.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If that worked better at making money we would be using that model. But it doesn't work, too many cooks in the kitchen ruins meals faster than anything and the general LEADING an army (as opposed to a gaggle doing whatever it feels like) will come in and kick the dog shit out of that model as it ALWAYS has.

Teams are better with a coach calling the runs, militaries run better with generals conducting battles and companies are better with executives at the helm. If corporate democracy was better at making money we would all be doing that. We wouldn't all be turning our nose up at it in favor of less.

It's like the women making 77c for every mans dollar myth.

If that were really true men simply wouldn't be employed.



We already have that system in most cases.

If you don't like what you see your vote is to pull your money, leave the company and take your money/assets elsewhere.

If anyone who works for me doesn't like how I'm running shit they can GTFO whenever they want. Go do their own thing and put me out of bidnizz at their earliest convenience. NOTHING stopping them as in most cases.

CEO still eats it though because SOMEBODY has to be the shot caller or the whole thing will take a shit as it has every fucking time ever.



2008 was an unintended consequence of warm fuzzy government fuckery, not capitalism.

Preach it, brother.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

How do you shame a CEO?



Show up in a bigger yacht?

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Democratise the enterprise.

Those that produce value should have a say in how it is appropriated and distributed.

Why do you believe the rank and file employees of a given organization are capable of determining how revenue should be appropriated and distributed? Most certainly are not.

 

[coati]

This is an interesting topic. Tell me more? Do you feel that this tactic works? If yes, then who is actually benefiting?

An example is the Epi-Pen issue. Cost of the life saving injection pens went up 600% in a short period of time, mainly due to lack of competition. CEO shaming got some instant action, albeit not a complete solution.

The beneficiaries in this case were patients whose lives depend on having an injection readily and affordably available to save them from a severe allergic reaction. Many of those folks did not have the luxury of waiting for a "natural market correction".

There are other examples of this. Yea CEO shaming! If you can't stand the heat, don't be a CEO.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Preach it, brother.

Please don't encourage him...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

An example is the Epi-Pen issue. Cost of the life saving injection pens went up 600% in a short period of time, mainly due to lack of competition. CEO shaming got some instant action, albeit not a complete solution.

The beneficiaries in this case were patients whose lives depend on having an injection readily and affordably available to save them from a severe allergic reaction. Many of those folks did not have the luxury of waiting for a "natural market correction".

There are other examples of this. Yea CEO shaming! If you can't stand the heat, don't be a CEO.

All of those "patients" have a lower cost alternative that requires nothing more than a minimal amount of education for their caregivers, education that was commonplace before Epi-Pen.

 

[Misshotndeep]

How do you shame a CEO?



Show up in a bigger yacht?

Actually it depends on the culture. It is damn hard here in the U.S. In other countries that have an actual moral code, they can dig up family secrets. Expose blatant human rights violations to workers or underage workers. Trick family members into doing dumb things. All of these and more will drive down the price of a stock. So basically you threaten their board of directors with really bad press. Here in the states they tired to shame CEOs by publishing their exorbitant incomes and severance packages. It turned into free status upgrades instead.

 

[Misshotndeep]

An example is the Epi-Pen issue. Cost of the life saving injection pens went up 600% in a short period of time, mainly due to lack of competition. CEO shaming got some instant action, albeit not a complete solution.

The beneficiaries in this case were patients whose lives depend on having an injection readily and affordably available to save them from a severe allergic reaction. Many of those folks did not have the luxury of waiting for a "natural market correction".

There are other examples of this. Yea CEO shaming! If you can't stand the heat, don't be a CEO.

Thank you for your answer. I was looking to see what you guys had to say. I think it really depends on how it is done and the culture in which it is done in.

Another example I remember is that of the daughter of an Asian CEO who threw a fit on a plain. His company stock dropped a lot and she had to make a public apology. I can not for the life of me remember the company name.

 

[BotanyBoy]

An example is the Epi-Pen issue. Cost of the life saving injection pens went up 600% in a short period of time, mainly due to lack of competition. CEO shaming got some instant action, albeit not a complete solution.

The beneficiaries in this case were patients whose lives depend on having an injection readily and affordably available to save them from a severe allergic reaction. Many of those folks did not have the luxury of waiting for a "natural market correction".

There are other examples of this. Yea CEO shaming! If you can't stand the heat, don't be a CEO.

In the case of the Epi-Pen it's not the CEO's fault the government protected the market for the CEO so that the CEO could rat fuck the people for absurd amounts of money.

US government = the mob.

 

[Misshotndeep]

In the case of the Epi-Pen it's not the CEO's fault the government protected the market for the CEO so that the CEO could rat fuck the people for absurd amounts of money.

Ah! Our dear friends the lobbyist...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Actually it depends on the culture. It is damn hard here in the U.S. In other countries that have an actual moral code, they can dig up family secrets. Expose blatant human rights violations to workers or underage workers. Trick family members into doing dumb things. All of these and more will drive down the price of a stock. So basically you threaten their board of directors with really bad press. Here in the states they tired to shame CEOs by publishing their exorbitant incomes and severance packages. It turned into free status upgrades instead.

I think it depends upon a shared culture. I wonder if we have that any more...

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ah! Our dear friends the lobbyist...

Lobbyist = sales department for the mob....I mean the US government.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"[E]xcessive corporate greed" is a subjective valuation ruled by the sin of envy...


If the corporation is too greedy not only does the market shun its output, but investors shy away from its stock. Whenever you see vacuous phrases like that you know you are talking to an economic illiterate who choses to blame their status in life on everyone but themselves.

Oh, what a pretty little theoretical economic world you live in. Everything works out perfectly in this pretty little theoretical world. Just leave it alone, remove all checks, and the GOD of the free and continuously growing market will take care of everything.

I just caught this. The fallacy of extremes. If you do not believe in my rules, then you believe in no rules at all; the polity of a child.

 

[hashtag45]

All of that was purely subjective without any actual experience.

It was just broad generalizations sans facts.



Everyone has their own self-interest first.

That's how you get to where you are.

CEO's top every list of jobs that are more likely to attract psychopaths.

I came across some really nice top-level managers (not as powerful, but in the same categ. as CEO's) but assholes too.
Almost everyone that I talked with here shares these views.

 

[Misshotndeep]

I think it depends upon a shared culture. I wonder if we have that any more...

That is part of America's issue. We never have. We have always been a melting pot of cultures and never have been able to define what we are as whole. We don't even all fly the same flag for christ sake. Sigh. Lack of national identity is a real issue. Maybe then the color of peoples skin would matter less. Just maybe.