|
Edited on Thu Dec-23-10 09:18 AM by rasputin1952
institutions must pay a high price for exceptional talent...facts speak otherwise.
It appears to most people that the most highly compensated individuals did not do much to expand said institutions, rather they increased profits by cutting back on labor and producing shoddy goods. To add insult to injury, any "profit" realized did not go to the average outside of the corporations inner workings shareholders as one would expect, rather it went to bonuses and even more perks for those at the top.
It should be understood as well, that corporations are a wholly different animal than most people understand, they work by "one share, one vote", if 10,000 shares are divided amongst say 500 individuals equally, that gives each 20 votes; some of these votes will go to the person at the top, others will not. If, however, the individual at the top has common shares, (different rules apply for preferred stock), as well...say 8,000, that means that one individual has 8,000 votes, ensuring that whatever he wants to happen will happen, to include massive bonuses, the investor therefore loses any compensation for his/her investment, (or receives a pittance). Bottom line, the rules of corporations are stacked against the common investor, but enough is usually made to keep them interested.
FWIW...many of the highest compensated CEO's, CFO's etc, brought many corporations to the brink of bankruptcy, (quite a few actually drove the businesses into the ground), and walked away with piles of cash and a new job at a corp where they did the same thing.
Often, logic and good faith are not parts of the equation when it comes down to how corporations work, although some do a fine job in serving the consumer and the investor...these are hardly ever mentioned though.
Edited: typo...:blush:
|