[Vision2020] CEO Dough: 78/1 In 1978: 821/1 Now
starbliss at gmail.com
Tue Sep 26 11:06:16 PDT 2006
Chasuk et. al.
I put the word "profit" in quotes to indicate that it might be defined
various ways. But defining profit correctly or not was not the main point
of my post.
The main point was the expansion of CEO compensation to kingly or queenly
levels, sometimes guaranteed even when the CEO performs so poorly that, if
they were a worker toward the bottom of the corporate totem pole, they would
be fired with mostly a "good luck" for compensation. And to question the
ramifications of why this sort of incredible expansion of compensation is
occurring at the executive level, when wages for workers at the bottom are
I discussed this trend, and how to explain it, given that it so violates one
basic principle of capitalism, when capitalism works as it should, that
usually hard work and success is monetarily rewarded by the system, while
failure is not, with a very worldly and well educated friend, who announced
that the incredible financial compensation now handed out to upper level
executives at major corporations, is "hush money."
What do you think?
On 9/25/06, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/06, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I immediately thought of the Moscow Food CO-OP for a local "business"
> > does not make "profit" that provides jobs, benefits, and a humble salary
> > management, that benefits the community in many ways, and works to
> > success, seemingly without the motivation for those involved to get
> > by USA standards.
> You got it right, Ted. Profit is indeed defined as the excess of
> income over expenses. Those expenses include salaries. At least,
> that is the accountant's definition. The economist gives you a
> different definition.
> I love the CO-OP, though I can rarely afford to shop there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020