----------
Hi Eva et al,
I must point out that there is a distinction between companies making
lots of money and CEOs etc. making huge salaries.
The justification for awarding the big bucks is to give an incentive
to those whose efforts lead the company towards profitability.
But I surmise that there is a limit beyond which the incentive motive
fails to produce results.
Raising an executive's pay from $100,000 to $200,000 would probably
produce a greater effort. But raising it to $500,000 will not likely
produce 2 1/2 times the effort. And paying more than $2,000,000 is
unlikely to really produce a significantly better result for the company.
I truly believe that motivation by money alone has its limits. There
are other ways to reward a person, like giving him/her a longer vacation!
Or a bigger office! Or a view from the top floor.
In other cases, it could be by allowing the exec to have a pet project
that might be, in other circumstances, a money losing situation.
The problem that I have with issuing monsterous paychecks is what
the recipients do with the money. If they buy consumer goods, like
yachts and vacations, OK, I have no problem. But if they seek to buy
politicians to cement their current wealth, then I draw the line.
I see NO justification for that behavoir and a lot of mischief.
There is no reason that our tax laws could not be changed so that
'good' behavoirs are rewarded and 'bad' behavoirs are economically
punished.
This would not solve all our problems, but it might be a step in the
right direction.
Dennis Paull
Los Altos, CA
[ Eva Durant wrote..]
>>
>> One answer is MONEY...and GREED ! There is little economic incentive
>> for anyone to share their wealth with those they do not know.
>>
>
>It is the system. Companies go bankrupt if they
>act against their financial interests. Greed
>and "human nature" doesn't come to it.
>People act according to their circumstances.
>If with the same genes I would been born
>as the offspring of a factory owner,
>if other social influences did not get to
>me, I would act as a good=efficient
>employer ought to...
>
>
>> Automation is the way that many if not most companies create higher
>> worker productivity. Why should they want to share the benefits?
>>
>> Worker cooperatives are one solution. Giving everyone shares in the
>> stock market is another. But if a 32 hour work week is more expensive
>> than a 40 hour week, why are we surprised when no one bites?
>>
>
>the first two of these option points towards a different economic
>structure as the condition for change.
>
>Eva
>
>
>> Dennis Paull
>> Los Altos, CA
>
>
>
