It's workers who gather the primary materials in the fields or the mines. It's workers who operate and repair machines. It's workers who tend to the shop and sell the final product. It's workers who do research to find new process to improve production and new product to sell. The CEO and the managers class as a whole isn't doing any of that, their role in the production of value is a lot lower than workers and as such they shouldn't be pay that much.
Privatization doesn't work. In public service companies that are privatized, after a while you pay more for a worse service: there is tons of example of it in many fields, like health, education, water distribution, phones, trains... USA health system is a undisputable proof of that, it's mostly private and the worst of the whole developed world. It's easy to understand: public companies don't have to make profits, private companies research maximum profit. So naturally, the second will sold at a higher price and try to reduce the cost by butchering the quality to give more money to shareholders.
Not politized? Say that to the big companies that bought every american election. Or to big CEO Musk who is the richest person in the world and now a key person in the US government.
Free trade is ineffective and unethical. The companies in concurrence are forced to waste money in advertising, waste materials (which are limited because we only have one planet) to flood the market, also it concentrates production activity in low pay countries, which is cause of human right abuse, destruction of environment, plus necessity to carry the goods to the consumption country which cause pollution. Because of climate change, there is a need to relocalize production more locally, to have increase environment protection rules and it's impossible with a full free trade.
No, companies don't play by the rules. Because of the free trade, they play by their own rules: if they don't like the laws in one country, they can go to another. Free trade makes it then really difficult to regulate things like salaries, work conditions and pollution.
You live in a pure theory, fantasy world: it doesn't happen like that in reality. Plus, you obviously contradicting yourself: give lot of money to shareholders so that they stay but if you do that there is no money to create more job, to invest in the company, to do research (in fact, almost every day, reading newspaper in the morning, we heard about a big company which is doing good profits but fire a lot of people and close factories or shops, just to give more cash to shareholders). You reason like we are still in the old XXth century capitalism (as in The protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism from Max Weber), but we aren't. Last big CEO who was a bit like that is Bill Gates, but most of them aren't anymore. Today capitalism is financial and speculative, most shareholders are sharks who just want immediate maximum return and don't care if the company or the workers have to die to reach this.
You compare the worker who have a tiny share of stocks of the company he works for, given as a complement of salary or bought at a preferential prize, to pension funds, investment banks, wealthy individuals who have billions of shares in hundreds of companies? Seriously? Workers who own shares and the few ethical funds which exist today have very little power compared to the big mastodons of the sector.
Massive management salaries and advantages and money given to shareholder are also an important cost for a big company today. They accuse workers salaries, tax and regulations, but what's really reduce competitivity is overpaid managers and shareholders who create no proven value. "Capital cost" as some economists call it now has increase so much, because of the greed of the shareholders, particularly in developed countries, that it have an important negative effect on companies competitivity and prizes.
Cooperative societies don't have a manager or have an elect one. Many studies show they perform on average better than normal companies. Sure, it's a model that work best for small companies, though an increasing number of economists question the role and utility of the CEO. Specific competences? CEO often go from a company to another in a totally different field. Most aren't even able to know or to do the work the lower paid employee in the company is doing. Still, it's good that your CEO take such a inclusive decision as gender neutral bathroom. It will probably increase productivity from trans and non binary workers. That's why i say decisions of a good CEO (one who care about the workers and not only about the shareholders) can have a positive effect on productivity. Most managers today are unfortunately using dumb, violent and unscientific management strategies to pressure workers in working more, but we know since WW2 at least and researches in sociology of work that such strategies often have opposite effect, workers braking production, discouragement and depressive people that work just the minimum not to be fired.
Workers take a lot more risk than CEO, but they don't have golden parachutes (in many countries, social benefits are even reduce every years, to finance tax cut to big companies). Look at the average life span of a garbage worker or a factory line worker. Their lives are a lot shorter than those of CEO, because they work a lot harder, they are exposed to hurtful work conditions and unsafe environment. A worker who made a wrong decision is fired without anything. A CEO who take a wrong decision, that will impact many more people, may be fired too, but with still often have a golden parachutes and some other advantages, plus, the massive money he makes before and some shares in the company, enough to just live comfortably without working anymore.
Exactly, borrowing money, loan isn't the same as selling shares. Companies should borrow the money to the state bank as a good prize (they are doing that already but should do more), not pay massive amount to greedy shareholders, it would cost a lot less. Problem also is for ideological reason, state no longer has monopoly of money creation, a situation that never exist in the whole human history, so countries are forced to take loan in private banks which is a total absurdity. Also because of trickle down ideology (like many neo liberal theories, it's unscientific, never proven, conflicting with most real world facts, but those so called economists still hold those beliefs with religious fervor and fanaticism), countries give massive tax cut to big companies and rich people. It results on an increased artificial public debt and in reduction of the public spending in areas that directly benefit to the workers.
You must be registered to see attachments
There is many people who are rich or have positions of power in companies not because they are any good but because of heritage. I was laughing so hard the time Musk pretend his dad never gain money from mines in South Africa apartheid. He says "i give 1 million to someone who prove he does it". His dad himself was like "give me the million, i have all the proofs". So many people in power are like that: they got money from parents, they also got contacts and good education too, it's a lot easier to succeed even when you're not this good when you start like that.
I should start again sharing some random history of sexuality and animal sexuality knowledge around.
Who forgot to put the oversized Tin Can in the trash again?
You must be registered to see attachments
